JasonGoldman

5 ms·

1.
by JasonGoldman 3y ago
You are welcome to fact check it for yourself.
2.
by JasonGoldman 3y ago
> open source software is not "carcinogenic" I'm referring to the outdated open source definition that is causing great projects leave the open source community. The rules, not the apps. > Open source software licenses
3.
by JasonGoldman 3y ago
Thank you for sharing the article. It makes many points that I found spot on. Choosing a different phrase than open source defeats the purpose of improving "open source". Imaging you want to bring down and rebuild a temple because
4.
by JasonGoldman 3y ago
I wouldn't call it monopoly, because you are allowed to use it as a service, but I get your point. Yes, MongoDB doesn't have to pay itself a licensing fee since it's their own software while others should if they choose to ma
5.
by JasonGoldman 3y ago
> What you are trying to do is hijack the term open source to enable companies like Meta to market their proprietary software using the goodwill generated by the FOSS movement Meta has already called it's software open source. And i
6.
by JasonGoldman 3y ago
Healthy competition is healthy, but there are competitors who are hostile. If you're referring to projects like MongoDB, the SSPL license doesn't give them (or anyone else) monopoly power. It's quite the opposite: "[The
7.
by JasonGoldman 3y ago
It is definitely an option to keep the definition of open source as it is today. But I don't think it's beneficial. Unlike "Made in Country" that can be interpreted by understanding the meaning of the words, the definiti
8.
by JasonGoldman 3y ago
> The purpose of your entire article is to label the Open Source Initiative as "irrelevant" so that you can promote a weaker definition of the term open source that does not protect the freedom of users to use the software as t
9.
by JasonGoldman 3y ago
The article doesn't suggest that the main criticism of OSI was its "one-man show" operation. That's just what the work hours in the tax filings show and is mentioned as an answer to "Who was behind OSI?" > M
10.
The Failure of Open Source Initiative(collectivesource.org)
7 points by JasonGoldman 3y ago|22 comments