4 ms·
The petition should use a more restricted definition, because the OSI definition only deals with the way software is developed and distributed, not how software
by _cenw 11mo ago
The petition should use a more restricted definition, because the OSI definition only deals with the way software is developed and distributed, not how software contributes to the common good. That a lot of open source software is foundational to how most other software is written is incidental for the OSI, but important for this recognition.
In fact I see no reason why you can't already get this recognition in the existing legal framework by creating an association with a specific scope.
- fsflover 11mo ago> the OSI definition only deals with the way software is developed and distributed, not how software contributes to the common good So it should be the FSF's definition of free software, https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
- _cenw 11mo agoRMS famously had no problem with dual licensing. The definition should. None of the GPL licenses protect from bad stewardship focused on maintaining commercial viability of some product either.