Salta al contenuto principale

It (always) bears repeating that the phrase "open source" is defined by the open source definition:

https://opensource.org/osd

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.
in reply to Drew DeVault

Cirno 🌸
Cirno 🌸
•
What do you call software with publicly viewable source code, though not for free distribution/modification?
in reply to Drew DeVault

Cirno 🌸
Cirno 🌸
•
The site seems more like the definition of free software. The site claims to have existed for "over 20 years" (probably like 22 or something), whereas the FSF has existed for nearly 40
in reply to Cirno 🌸

Cirno 🌸
Cirno 🌸
•
Given that, if anyone's gaslighting anyone it's opensource.org
in reply to Cirno 🌸

Drew DeVault
Drew DeVault
•
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.
in reply to Drew DeVault

Cirno 🌸
Cirno 🌸
•
Personally, I strongly advocate for free software as an alternative to shady things corporations like to slip into their products along with the government backdoors (see PRISM). However, I fail to see why I would have anymore credibility if I were to have created a "foundation" 20 years ago and said that open source software was any software written by vampires
in reply to Cirno 🌸

Drew DeVault
Drew DeVault
•
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.
in reply to Drew DeVault

Drew DeVault
Drew DeVault
•
also, just to be sure: you are aware that open source includes the GPL, and free software incluses the MIT license? The list of free software licenses and open source liceses is almost identical, save for one or two obscure licenses. Free software and copyleft are different things.
in reply to Drew DeVault

Cirno 🌸
Cirno 🌸
•
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
in reply to Cirno 🌸

Drew DeVault
Drew DeVault
•
there is a gaslighting conspiracy, you're just not paying attention. The Commons Clause, Ethical Source, the Redis debacle, and there have been more. I know because I've been there for every single one, and it's been fighting tooth and nail to get these people to quit their lies. 100% of them have had ulterior motives. Wake up and smell the dissent, and get the fuck out of my notifications if you''re just going to shut your eyes and tell gaslighting assholes it's okay to infiltrate our communities and destroy the foundations upon which our free and open source rennisance was built.
in reply to Cirno 🌸

Cirno 🌸
Cirno 🌸
•
Also, let's say you get your way and we start calling open source "source available". Now we got another fracture in the programming world and another term to balance.
"Oh, the program? It's source available here."
"Well is it open source?"
"No, and it's not free software either"
in reply to Cirno 🌸

Cirno 🌸
Cirno 🌸
•
Also, the term "open source" has existed long before the supposed "foundation" came into existence. It was just a term corporations thought rolled off the tongue pretty nice and fit (the source IS out in the open). Hence the whole free software debacle and freedom licenses
in reply to Cirno 🌸

Drew DeVault
Drew DeVault
•
the term was not in common use before the OSI came up with it. The origin of the term is well documented and not in doubt.
in reply to Cirno 🌸

Elena ``of Valhalla''
Elena ``of Valhalla''
•
that's because it is a definition of free software?

https://www.debian.org/social_contract

(it wasn't stolen, it was written by the same people)
in reply to Drew DeVault

Two Teks in a trench coat
Two Teks in a trench coat
•
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.
in reply to Two Teks in a trench coat

Drew DeVault
Drew DeVault
•
I've never seen anyone make any counter-arguments based in fact, they just try to blithely assert that open source means what they want it to. Sometimes it's worse, they'll lie and sow dissent about the history of the term and try to rewrite the facts to be more suitable to their interpretation.
in reply to Drew DeVault

@kmicu@mastodon.social
@kmicu@mastodon.social
•
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.
in reply to @kmicu@mastodon.social

Drew DeVault
Drew DeVault
•
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.
in reply to Drew DeVault

Drew DeVault
Drew DeVault
•
I have never said that the term "open source" was defended by law. I have said that people are abusing the term to sell a lie. This might even be fraudulent without a trademark! After all, "beef" isn't trademarked but Taco Bell was still ordered to stop selling a beef/cardboard mixture as "beef"
in reply to Drew DeVault

Drew DeVault
Drew DeVault
•
this misinformation is dangerous and stupid and you need to quit buying into the propaganda if you really do give a shit about free and open source software, period.
in reply to Drew DeVault

@kmicu@mastodon.social
@kmicu@mastodon.social
•
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.
in reply to @kmicu@mastodon.social

Drew DeVault
Drew DeVault
•
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?

https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source-software

http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html

No need to yell? How about no need for you to subvert the open source ecosystem, dickhead.
in reply to Drew DeVault

@kmicu@mastodon.social
@kmicu@mastodon.social
•
'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.

† https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22open+source%22&year_start=1800&year_end=2008

Of course we end here after your ad hominem. You want to be asshole more than know the truth. That’s your choice.
in reply to @kmicu@mastodon.social

Elena ``of Valhalla''
Elena ``of Valhalla''
•
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.

in reply to Elena ``of Valhalla''

@kmicu@mastodon.social
@kmicu@mastodon.social
•
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.
@sir
in reply to @kmicu@mastodon.social

Elena ``of Valhalla''
Elena ``of Valhalla''
•
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).
in reply to Elena ``of Valhalla''

@kmicu@mastodon.social
@kmicu@mastodon.social
•
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark#Trademark_erosion

Questo sito utilizza cookie per riconosce gli utenti loggati e quelli che tornano a visitare. Proseguendo la navigazione su questo sito, accetti l'utilizzo di questi cookie.

⇧