Tip: the only people who think that the Open Source Definition does not define "open source" are saying so because they have a vested interest in marketing software which does not qualify for the title as such. Watch out for these arguments, they are gaslighting you.
Be aware, it's not just corporations trying to capitalize on the open source market. The context for this post was that a certain "ethical" alternative to open source is insisting on using the term open source to describe software which is, on multiple levels, incompatible with the open source definition.
@sir It's pretty ironic that all this "open source" companies who want to protect open source, are actually destroying open source with their new license.
@cryptoxic @sir I recommend you to look at this video https://fosdem.org/2020/schedule/event/gpl_and_business/ from Nextcloud founder.
Thanks for the clue! I didn't realize projects were changing licenses due to the XaaS movement. Only half way through the video, not sure how he's gonna tie GPL back to making money working on free software yet. I'll revisit when i have time to finish it.
@sir I totally agree. I realize I'm wading into muddy water where people have very strong feelings here, but I worry that companies playing shenanigans with their licensing as a reaction to feeling victimized by other companies that used the software they offered in accordance with the letter of the license it was offered under are in very morally quesetionable territory and could easily hurt the entire open source effort in the large.
@sir Now Im curious what brought this post on.
@jordan31 have you heard about "Contributor Covenant" the most divisive template of Code of Conduct meant for FOSS projects?
@wolf480pl Yes, i'm not a fan of it
@jordan31 Coraline is its author. And she's now trying to get elected onto the OSI board, and her stated goal is changing the Open Source Definition.
@wolf480pl What is her new definition?
@sir kill advertising yesterday
> Tip: the only people who think that the Open Source Definition does not define "open source" are saying so because they have a vested interest in marketing software which does not qualify for the title as such.
I don't disagree *at the moment*. But the Open Source Definition is set by the Open Source Initiative, and the OSI could change it at any point.
There may come a point where, as a community, we regret saying "open source == OSD" (i.e., whatever OSI says)
@codesections if the definition changes, for the worse, we'll start having to use version numbers. Bleh. But right now the bar for changing the OSD is pretty high and I would be surprised if anyone managed to get changes in to weaken it.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!