Just going off this table [1] there is pretty wide disagreement of what constitutes open source between different groups, so to claim without qualification that you alone get to define and arbitrate that seems pretty crazy to me. Like either you are stuck in an echo chamber or you've lost sight of the difference between yourself and the community e.g. if you aren't with us you are against open source. Either way, it does not make me want to use the OSI my north star. Not sure who elected them kings of open source. One could argue that the list of licenses on Wikipedia is more reflective community consensus since, in theory at least, it is the product of a lot of debate and consensus from many contributors.[2]
But notice that the commons clause and server side public license don't even show up on that list. There might some disagreement around where to draw the line but there is some general consensus that there is a difference between "open source" and "source available". And yet I've seen a few companies that market their product as "open source" just because their source code is on GitHub, even though the license is just as restrictive as any proprietary license.
The OSI's position is particularly annoying since it's been proven over and over again that they didn't originate the term[1], they co-opted it from a pre-existing term and concept in the community to try to sell "free software" to businesses. They don't get to define it - then, now, or ever.
There's some sleight of hand in this comment on multiple levels.
> going off this table [1] there is pretty wide disagreement of what constitutes open source between different groups
Since that's not what the table represents, that's not a reasonable conclusion supported by the data in the table alone. (Coincidentally, this is the same principle undergirding Kyle's issue with OSI's post drawing unsound inferences from the Neo4J Sweden decision.)
To start with, something can be GPL-incompatible without any implication about whether it's open source or not. In the second instance, something can be approved for use in the Debian project or not, but—again—that's a separate question from "Is there any legitimacy to the position that satisfying the criteria described in the Open Source Definition is a necessary precondition to being able to call something 'open source'?" NB: maintaining mental clarity about the separation between the legitimacy of that definition and the OSI's authority to "rule" on any given "record" (i.e. the legitimacy of the OSI's power, esp. in future findings) is important. Recognizing a definition as normative is a wholly separate matter from determining who gets to adjudicate whether something meets that standard.
> to claim without qualification that you alone get to define and arbitrate that seems pretty crazy to me
See, that's different even still! Agreeing that a given definition is legitimate is not the same as anointing any given group and its future findings as authoritative.
To use an example: we can agree that "fair use" is described in Title 17 and subsequent case law. In a fair use dispute, this would not be the point of contention—both parties would acknowledge this. Which party would prevail in their action, however, would depend on a finding of fact by the courts: how the definition applies to the parties' circumstances—not whether the definition is legitimate.
>Agreeing that a given definition is legitimate is not the same as anointing any given group and its future findings as authoritative.
Clearly you didn't read the OSI blog post that this blog post is referencing
>The court only confirmed what we already know – that “open source” is a term of art for software that has been licensed under a specific type of license, and whether a license is an OSI-approved license is a critically important factor in user adoption of the software.
I guess that is fair, or arguably fair. What would be a better name for it? "Free software" is similarly loaded ("free software is like free beer, software you don't pay for", "open source is like open house, you can get in the source"). Maybe "libre software"? "Permissive software"? The full "FOSS" or "FLOSS" acronyms?
Should we stick to specific license names e.g. "GPL software" or "MIT software"? That's probably the safest as those usually include an actually recognized trademark.
> “Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer.” We sometimes call it “libre software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for “free” as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software is gratis.
Yes they do, just like the OSI is clear on what open source is. But those terms don't explicitly mean that, which is why there is disagreement, especially if the groups supporting them fall into disrepute. I am asking what better name we can find for this, one that is self-evident rather than one that is only made unambiguous by the active work of either OSI or FSF.
No, we really can't, because this is a political issue rather than an issue of logic. The term "freeware" had an unambiguous definition before the FSF came along and decided to co-opt the term for its personal crusade, just like "open source" had an unambiguous definition[1] before the OSI came along to co-opt it in an effort to sell "free software" to businesses. You could adopt a new term tomorrow and people would still come along and try to co-opt it. How do I know? Because when people tried to co-opt Freeware, the term Shareware was adopted, and people came along to try to co-opt that. Likewise, when Freeware was co-opted as "Free Software", the OSI came along to bastardize it and repackage it as "open source" (co-opting and existing term).
You cannot coin your way out of being co-opted by bad actors.
I don't know if naming is a political issue, it is a social one. If I call my software "MIT licensed", there is no ambiguity, and no politics in the meaning (though the act of picking a license can be political I guess).
It is political in the sense that the acceptance of definitions is a matter of politics, not logic. If you call your software "MIT licensed" there can very well be ambiguity by virtue of muddying the situation and getting enough people to agree that your definition is correct such that uninvolved third parties have no idea who is right. This is the present situation with "open source", where the OSI has inserted itself as an arbiter of what is and is not open source, much as the FSF has inserted itself s an arbiter of what is and is not free software. Ultimately, whether you accept their definitions or pre-existing definitions does not boil down to logic, but whose politics you align with, and hence whose definition has greater utility for you such that you want to adopt and propagate it.
Actually FOSS (just as OSS) _only_ respects the freedom of the licencee. Any ethical restrictions that are not part of the legal environment (like export control) make open source "unfree" as uncompromised openness is a precondition. IMHO opinion freedom stops there where it restricts the freedom of someone else.
I think FSF is in parts neoliberal and should engage more in an ethical discussion. Just claiming to be free of ideology is ideology itself...
(Edit: made clear that it is not only a FOSS but also OSI "problem")
Oh, I like freedomware. Though it is not immediately obvious what kinds of freedom; I can imagine Commons Clause software being called freedomware as well.
Yes, it turns out to invite confusion when you try defining "freedom" by the circumscription of an accident of Cold War era history and object to other people reading the word as if it were English.
If you care what the OSI thinks, then say 'OSI Approved Licensed Code' - you can already use that, and it's already protected by their registered trademark.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-so...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_free_and_op...