It (always) bears repeating that the phrase "open source" is defined by the open source definition:
The OSI invented the term "open source" and it has always been defined by the OSD. There are systemmic gaslighting campaigns ongoing to convince you otherwise. Remember: the only people who are trying to convince you that the OSD does not define open source have ulterior motives, namely convincing you that their propreitary software is open.
Cirno 🌸
in reply to Drew DeVault • •Drew DeVault
in reply to Cirno 🌸 • •Cirno 🌸
in reply to Drew DeVault • •Cirno 🌸
in reply to Cirno 🌸 • •Drew DeVault
in reply to Cirno 🌸 • •open source can define its own thing without gaslighting free software. If it tried to redefine "free software" to the advantage of the OSI, that'd be different - but the OSI made their own thing, with its own name, and that's okay.
Open source and free software are very similar - almost indistinguishable - but the main difference is that free software comes with a movement and open source is just a definition.
Which side of the fence you sit on is a meaningful question to ask, but either way, I don't think that it makes OSI in the wrong.
Cirno 🌸
in reply to Drew DeVault • •Drew DeVault
in reply to Cirno 🌸 • •because you would be working in bad faith, or at least not seriously. Let's not pretend that open source has done nothing for the free software ecosystem. It has played an important role in producing the diverse and dominant ecosystem of free and open source software we enjoy today, and it's worth protecting.
And for the record, I use copyleft licenses for most of my own projects. I'm not batting for the other team here. I don't see free software and open source as distinct teams, we're better off cooperating *against* corporate interests than getting lost with infighting while they're busy taking over.
Drew DeVault
in reply to Drew DeVault • •Cirno 🌸
in reply to Drew DeVault • •We're getting off on quite a tangent here. I don't believe there's some gaslighting conspiracy going on here. Ask any, go on, any developer what the difference between open source and free software is. They'll likely answer that open source is where the source is publically available, and free software has all the nice things like letting anyone use and make modifications to it, so long as they do some key things.
Sure, initially it was supposed to be a name change of sorts as "free software" didn't sound very attractive to corporations. However, the modern day accepted definition of open source is where the sourcecode is able to be seen by others online. This is a very good thing. Even if it isn't ideal, microsoft making parts of windows open source is certainly a step in the right direction in terms of knowing what's actually in that black box
Drew DeVault
in reply to Cirno 🌸 • •Cirno 🌸
in reply to Cirno 🌸 • •"Oh, the program? It's source available here."
"Well is it open source?"
"No, and it's not free software either"
Drew DeVault
in reply to Cirno 🌸 • •the term "source available" is not new.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-a…
This page was first written in 2004.
Cirno 🌸
in reply to Cirno 🌸 • •Drew DeVault
in reply to Cirno 🌸 • •Elena ``of Valhalla''
in reply to Cirno 🌸 • •that's because it is a definition of free software?
debian.org/social_contract
(it wasn't stolen, it was written by the same people)
Free Teks for sale, cheap
in reply to Drew DeVault • •What's the counterargument they trot out for that?
I've heard credible statements that the phrase "open source" predates OSI, but they've been running with it for a few decades now. Open source is whatever they say it is.
Drew DeVault
in reply to Free Teks for sale, cheap • •@kmicu@mastodon.social
in reply to Drew DeVault • •that’s not how trademark works. OSI cannot *own* or *define* a descriptive term like ‘open source’ that would not hold in court.
OSI did not invent that *descriptive* term; we cannot trademark it.
PS I’m a copyleft|GNU folk using kernel Libre-linux—stating that before you start saying I have ulterior motives to promote proprietary software.
Drew DeVault
in reply to @kmicu@mastodon.social • •trademarks don't define language. I didn't say it was trademarked by the OSI, I said it was defined by the OSI. And trademarks don't even govern definitions in this way in the first place. Can we drop the fucking trademark argument already?
And THE OSI INVENTED THE TERM. THIS IS WELL-DOCUMENTED DOCUMENTED HISTORICAL FACT.
Drew DeVault
in reply to Drew DeVault • •Drew DeVault
in reply to Drew DeVault • •@kmicu@mastodon.social
in reply to Drew DeVault • •did you know that FSF and OSI has different lists for libre licenses? Some licenses are ‘open source’ as defined by OSI but not FSF and vice versa.
Open source is a descriptive term that existed in more countries than USA.
If claim that’s not the case then link to that ‘well‑documented’ historical fact and I will find you prior usage.
No need to yell at me.
Drew DeVault
in reply to @kmicu@mastodon.social • •I did know that. Did you know that they differ by only 1 or 2 obscure licenses no one uses? And what bearing does this have on anything in the first place?
opensource.com/article/18/2/co…
catb.org/~esr/open-source.html
No need to yell? How about no need for you to subvert the open source ecosystem, dickhead.
Daniele Tricoli moved to eriol@akko.mornie.org likes this.
@kmicu@mastodon.social
in reply to Drew DeVault • •'open source’ existed before ’90, and especially was in usage before 98, and that’s only checking English†.
Those folks *chose* ‘open source’ as a motto to promote their initiative but did not invent the term.
† books.google.com/ngrams/graph?…
Of course we end here after your ad hominem. You want to be asshole more than know the truth. That’s your choice.
Elena ``of Valhalla''
in reply to @kmicu@mastodon.social • •For the huge majority of licenses the FSF and OSI agree.
There are some free licenses that the OSI refused to certify as open source because of license proliferation (they were considered mostly equivalent to some other existing license). One such example is the WTFPL, which is considered free by the FSF, but its use is not recommended.
For the reverse case, I can think of the artistic license (version 1): here the FSF thinks that the license is too ambiguous to be sure, and in doubt considers it non-free, which prompted its main users to rewrite in a more precise way which has been approved by the FSF. The OSI thinks that even the original wording was already open source, but recommends to adopt version 2 anyway.
Both cases look pathological (in the mathematical sense of the word) to me, and not really a sign that there are deep disagreements on which licenses should be approved or not.
Drew DeVault reshared this.
@kmicu@mastodon.social
in reply to Elena ``of Valhalla'' • •thank you for that factual reply. (Needed to block @sir for ad hominem.)
‘Cuz there are valid concerns like proliferation or minor disagreements not every OS license is accepted and blessed as ‘OS according to {OSI,FSF}. They are still OS though.
Some licenses never submitted for approval like copyleft‑next are also OS [descriptive term] but not ‘OS by {OSI,FSF}’.
CAL or Mulan are today OS by OSI but not by FSF.
Hence ‘open source’ term is not owned nor def. by OSI.
Elena ``of Valhalla''
in reply to @kmicu@mastodon.social • •I don't think that using Open Source for things that aren't approved by OSI is a good idea.
Saying e.g. that the WTFPL is open source is probably harmless, but the main risk I see is that using the term in a generic way makes it much easier for companies to openwash things that are very much non open/free by any definition (at least definitions shared by the people who care about floss).
OSI may not own the term legally, but I'm not sure that there are other entities I would trust with the term (except possibly Fedora? I'm not sure whether they use the term open source or free software), like e.g. for Free Software I would trust both the FSF and Debian (yes, I know they disagree on some edge cases that are not software).
@kmicu@mastodon.social
in reply to Elena ``of Valhalla'' • •it’s a double‑edge sword so let’s once again blame ESR/OSI for confusing everyone on purpose.
Even sole ‘open source’ term is misleading ‘cuz when source is open it doesn’t mean it’s open source 🤦 Thx ESR⸮
One thing is for sure, if we poll programmers what is ‘open source’ then I assure you majority of them will not even mention OSI or FSF. They will only mumble something about MIT or GPL.
OSI lost control over ‘open source’ long time ago like many others en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_…