Dilution of the term "Open Source?"

Is it just me or is passing off things that aren’t FOSS as FOSS a much bigger thing lately than it was previously.

Don’t get me wrong. I remember Microsoft’s “shared source” thing from back in the day. So I know it’s not a new thing per se. But it still seems like it’s suddenly a bigger problem than it was previously.

LLaMa, the large language model, is billed by Meta as “Open Source”, but isn’t.

I just learned today about “Grayjay,” a video streaming service client app created by Louis Rossmann. Various aticles out there are billing it as “Open Source” or “FOSS”. It’s not. Grayjay’s license doesn’t allow commercial redistribution or derivative works. Its source code is available to the general public, but that’s far from sufficient to qualify as “Open Source.” (That article even claims “GrayJay is an open-source app, which means that users are free to alter it to meet their specific needs,” but Grayjay’s license grants no license to create modified versions at all.) FUTO, the parent project of Grayjay pledges on its site that “All FUTO-funded projects are expected to be open-source or develop a plan to eventually become so.” I hope that means that they’ll be making Grayjay properly Open Source at some point. (Maybe once it’s sufficiently mature/tested?) But I worry that they’re just conflating “source available” and “Open Source.”

I’ve also seen some sentiment around that “whatever, doesn’t matter if it doesn’t match the OSI’s definition of Open Source. Source available is just as good and OSI doesn’t get a monopoly on the term ‘Open Source’ anyway and you’re being pedantic for refusing to use the term ‘Open Source’ for this program that won’t let you use it commercially or make modifications.”

It just makes me nervous. I don’t want to see these terms muddied. If that ultimately happens and these terms end up not really being meaningful/helpful, maybe the next best thing is to only speak in terms of concrete license names. We all know the GPL, MIT, BSD, Apache, Mozilla, etc kind of licenses are unambiguously FOSS licenses in the strictest sense of the term. If a piece of software is under something that doesn’t have a specific name, then the best we’d be able to do is just read it and see if it matches the OSI definition or Free Software definition.

Until then, I guess I’ll keep doing my best to tell folks when something’s called FOSS that isn’t FOSS. I’m not sure what else to do about this issue, really.

otter,
@otter@lemmy.ca avatar

I agree that there are more things lying (or being misleading) about their open source. OpenAI is another one that doesn’t match the name anymore

At the same time there’s a spectrum of open source, reflected by the range of licenses. IMO any level of open source is better than not having it, and sometimes it makes sense to restrict it a little bit.

  • ex. The reasoning given by GrayJay was that they don’t want a bunch of malware / ad filled clones running around, and I think that’s reasonable justification? I often see posts complaining about fake apps with similar names, and this might help GrayJay avoid that headache. At the end of the day, they’re making something useful available for free and opening up their source for others to inspect and learn from.

What I think is also happening is that it’s now more popular to be open source. So more people are making things SOMEWHERE on the spectrum of open source rather than closed source only, and so we’re seeing more content that doesn’t properly match the culture of FOSS development.

I feel like that’s still an improvement, but I’m new to the world of FOSS so I’d love to hear more thoughts :)

lily33,

The reasoning given by GrayJay was that they don’t want a bunch of malware / ad filled clones running around, and I think that’s reasonable justification?

It’s not.

  1. That just hasn’t been a problem for open source projects. I’ve been using almost only open source since like 2007, and I’ve never seen or heard about an ad-filled clone of some of them. Even if they are a thing, they’ve never reached me as a user.
  2. If someone did want to distribute malware clones, they won’t be stopped by a license restriction.
otter,
@otter@lemmy.ca avatar

For #1: It’s pretty common for example with the YouTube frontends, downloaders, etc. UBlock Origin has a set of filters to warn when you arrive at a fake site. Try googling “revanced”, you should run across one

For #2: Fair, but wouldn’t the license make it easier to go after the other ones legally? It’s easier to submit a takedown request if you can back it up. It won’t stop someone very motivated, but it’s a barrier still

TootSweet,

For #2, it depends what you mean by “malware”. If it’s something fraudulent, they’re breaking the law anyway. Surely if they’re not afraid of criminal charges they’re not afraid of a little copyright infringement. If you’re talking about something more like “antifeatures”, I’d argue that copyleft is better than “no derivatives” for that particular case.

Unmapped,

The ad filled clones are definitely a thing. Just search for newpipe in the Play Store and you will see them. A lot of people don’t know about the fdroid store so when they hear about newpipe they search on Play Store and end up downloading a fake one full of ads.

lily33,

Huh. I guess that’s what happens when Google actually prefer that you download the add-y version, because they also make money from the ads.

joeldebruijn,

I believe Firefox had their fair share of problematic clones but they dont protect from that by licensing their code in a special way. They protect their brand and use of logo etc

So you can use the code and create something “new”, you just cant call it Firefox anymore.

lemann,

My response might be a hot take 🥲

Personally:

  • OSS: source available
  • FOSS: Free (freedom) open source, copyleft

I just learned today about “Grayjay,” a video streaming service client app created by Louis Rossmann. Various aticles out there are billing it as “Open Source” or “FOSS”. It’s not. Grayjay’s license doesn’t allowe commercial redistribution or derivative works. Its source code is available to the general public, but that’s far from sufficient to qualify as “Open Source.” (That article even claims “GrayJay is an open-source app, which means that users are free to alter it to meet their specific needs,” but Grayjay’s license grants no license to create modified versions at all.)

I had a look through the license at launch, and also watched the entirety of Louis’ video, in both of which I didn’t come across any restrictions imposed on an end user to modify the app for their own needs or redistribution - just no commercial redistribution or redistribution with ill intent. I keep seeing the restrictions mentioned though and genuinely cannot find anything to back them up…

In the original launch video Louis does explicitly state that the app is not free, but he does erroneously refer to it as open source. Mainstream tech outlets conflating foss/source-available is likely down to journalists just not aware of the distinction, or just taking his word for it

IMO since the app is Louis’ project that is primarily being financed by donating his personal money to FUTO (AFAICT) it would be immediately obvious to a follower of his that the app is not going to be open source as per the OSI definition. Looking at what happened with NewPipe clones when he mentioned it on his channel, and bad actors in local governments sabotaging his attempts to get a bulletproof R2R passed in many states, his overall trust level is probably pretty low - the last thing someone like that would want on a personal project is loads of strangers contributing, bad actors ripping it off trying to make a quick buck, or even worse redistributing it with malware.

Leaving the OSS conflation aspect for a second, Grayjay is a very big and complex app, with integrated dev tools and a comprehensive plugin system (each are individually GPL licensed if i’m not mistaken). IMO chances are if someone wants to modify the app, they should be looking at a GPL plugin to introduce their functionality in, rather than modifying the source - as would be required with something like NewPipe. They have a whole youtube video going through how to develop a plugin, and how it’s architected.

If/when Grayjay is transitioned to FOSS, I imagine it’ll be difficult for the community to maintain it due to the complexity… It’ll probably need to be broken down into several smaller manageable parts, such as projects like Home Assistant, LibreOffice, and Node-Red. Something like NewPipe, which is literally just the Android app and extractor library, would be much easier for unpaid volunteer contributors to maintain IMO.

I personally disagree slightly with the current definition of “open source”, because it hides so much nuance that isn’t readily evident to someone unfamiliar with the community. A lot of people do not make the connection of “open source” = OSI, they think “open source” = source is out in the open. FOSS and FLOSS are way more explicit in meaning from my perspective

lily33,

I didn’t come across any restrictions imposed on an end user to modify the app for their own needs or redistribution

It’s by default that you can’t redistribute modified versions. You need explicit permission to do so. Furthermore, that license is revocable. So let’s say you invest a lot of time into making modifications - at any point, they can revoke the license, and you suddenly find yourself forbidden from distributing your modified version, too/

If/when Grayjay is transitioned to FOSS, I imagine it’ll be difficult for the community to maintain it due to the complexity…

That’s not really relevant. There’s no requirement in open source on how the projects are to be maintained.

the last thing someone like that would want on a personal project is loads of strangers contributing, bad actors ripping it off trying to make a quick buck, or even worse redistributing it with malware.

It’s up to him whether he accepts strangers contributing. That has nothing to do with whether it’s open source. If he didn’t want contributions, he could disallow any pull requests on an open source software - or conversely, if there are people willing to contribute to a non-open-source project, there’s theoretically nothing stopping that. Redistributing it with malware is not really a problem open-source projects have, and malware writers wouldn’t care for the license anyway.

The only thing is would be the somewhat relevant would be making a quick buck part, but that’s only been a problem for people using MIT/BSD license.

Finally, I’ll never understand why people would want to name software after dental string…

helenslunch,

IMO since the app is Louis’ project that is primarily being financed by donating his personal money to FUTO

He’s not donating money to FUTO. He works for them. They give him money.

egerlach,

IMO since the app is Louis’ project that is primarily being financed by donating his personal money to FUTO (AFAICT)

For clarity, FUTO is privately funded by an independently wealthy person, not Louis. Louis is an employee who believes in the mission.

TootSweet,

I keep seeing the restrictions mentioned though and genuinely cannot find anything to back them up…

At least in the U.S. any right granted exclusively to the copyright holder and not mentioned in the license is reserved by the copyright holder. So if the license doesn’t allow something that absent a license would constitute copyright infringement, then… well… it’s not allowed.

In the licence, they say “subject to the terms of this license, we grant you a non-transferable, non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license to access and use the code solely for the purposes of review, compilation and non-commercial distribution.” “Review” is defined elsewhere in the license and seems pretty explicitly and purposefully not to include making altered versions of the work.

A modified version of it would be a “derivative work” under copyright law, which would constitute copyright infringement (even if not distributed, according to the research I’ve done) if the license didn’t allow it. So as far as I can tell from the license, even cloning the source of Grayjay and changing the background color would constitute copyright infringement.

And, of course, just above, it also says “non-commercial distribution.” So selling a copy of the source or compiled code would infringe.

(Also, the section where the license says “we may change the rules at any time” basically makes the license completely useless.)

All that to say if you’re looking for anything to back up claims of restrictions, it’s all there in the license.

…he does erroneously refer to it as open source…

Honestly, I haven’t watched Louis Rossmann’s video about Grayjay but I wouldn’t be satisfied to just trust what he says when the license says something else. (Still, I do intend to watch it when I get a sec if I can. Or did YouTube take it down and make it hard to find? Who knows.)

the last thing someone like that would want on a personal project is loads of strangers contributing…

Open Source (or FOSS or Free Software or whatever) doesn’t mean there’s no gatekeeper. The vast majority of Open Source projects allow contributions only after an approval process.

…bad actors ripping it off trying to make a quick buck…

I get that. I’d still rather see it properly FOSS, though.

I used to pay attention to things in the Minetest development community. There were some cases where random folks made Android ports (before Minetest officially supported Android) and sold them on the Play Store.

(Which seems like a good argument for copyleft but that’s none of my business. Lol.)

…or even worse redistributing it with malware.

I would imagine any outfit sleazy enough to distribute “malware” wouldn’t be deterred by a little copyright infringement. I wouldn’t think a source-available project could prevent that with license terms to any extent that a FOSS project couldn’t.

(Or do you mean something more like I’d call “antifeatures” – not illegal, but privacy invading or DRM’d whatever?)

If/when Grayjay is transitioned to FOSS, I imagine it’ll be difficult for the community to maintain it due to the complexity…

I’m not sure why you think a transition to FOSS would require any change in how it’s developed.

Leaving the OSS conflation aspect for a second, Grayjay is a very big and complex app, with integrated dev tools and a comprehensive plugin system (each are individually GPL licensed if i’m not mistaken). IMO chances are if someone wants to modify the app, they should be looking at a GPL plugin to introduce their functionality in, rather than modifying the source - as would be required with something like NewPipe. They have a whole youtube video going through how to develop a plugin, and how it’s architected.

I’m less concerned about whether people can actually materially make it do things the authors didn’t anticipate now than I am whether I can be certain that if/when it gets enshittified or abandoned or whatever someone can fork it and the world goes on our merry way as if nothing was amiss. Like has been done with OpenOffice/Libreoffice, MPlayer/MPlayer2/MPV, and others. As the license is now, we 100% cannot without rewriting at least the core from scratch in a cleanroom kind of fashion.

If/when Grayjay is transitioned to FOSS, I imagine it’ll be difficult for the community to maintain it due to the complexity… It’ll probably need to be broken down into several smaller manageable parts, such as projects like Home Assistant, LibreOffice, and Node-Red. Something like NewPipe, which is literally just the Android app and extractor library, would be much easier for unpaid volunteer contributors to maintain IMO.

Again, why after it transitioned to FOSS would it suddenly have to be maintained by a “community” of “unpaid volunteer contributors” any more so than it is now?

Knusper,

“Open-source” is not up for interpretation. The word was coined by this definition being made public: opensource.org/osd/

Pantherina,
@Pantherina@feddit.de avatar

No modification at all is pretty bad, but Rossman in his video simply said he wants to avoid scam like whats happening to Newpipe.

TootSweet,

Hmm. Good to know his reasoning, I guess. I’m not sure how he thinks that license will prevent that, but at least that makes his thoughts clear.

scrubbles,
@scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech avatar

I think we’re seeing a natural evolution, and it’s in no small part due to corpos using FOSS to their own will. FOSS works if everyone is playing nicely, but corpos aren’t.

For example. You build a small piece of code that helps out a huge chunk of developers. You release it for free, and let them use it however they want. A ton of small projects and apps are made easier thanks to you and your work, and you get called out from them. However, a giant corpo then takes this, uses it in all of their brand-name solutions, and then sells those solutions for millions of dollars becoming one of the most profitable companies in existence. You don’t get a dime for your work, even though without your work their work would have been much more difficult.

This is the story of core.js, who’s developer is currently in search of work to feed his family in Eastern Europe, while Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and pretty much 90% of the web use his code. He used the MIT license which allows this.

I think a lot of developers have seen this and are wise to it. GPL licensing is on the rise. I know when I read his story I immediately changed my tone from “FOSS/MIT Licensing is the best most moral way to go” to “Oh fuck those corpos, they could have at least said thank you”.

Personally I hope more devs push for “Open source, but check the license” so they get credit where credit is due. I think it’s completely fair for them to use a license that says “You are free to use it however you want - but if you start charging for your product I get a cut.”

Kushia,
@Kushia@lemmy.ml avatar

You make some good points but yeah, if you licence something under a license that allows corporations to do this don’t be surprised if they do.

I don’t know if there’s some license out there that allows free sharing of code with a limitation around using it in for-profit products and profit sharing for them and whether such a license would even work.

scrubbles,
@scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech avatar

That’s the gist of GPL.

Kushia,
@Kushia@lemmy.ml avatar

The GPL also enforces that you need to share your code, which isn’t necessarily what these devs want.

scrubbles,
@scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech avatar

This is what I was remembering incorrectly, thank you for the correction

TootSweet,

It’s perfectly legal for me to sell copies of any GPL code (forks or unmodified) for as much profit as I like and not share those profits with the original authors.

scrubbles,
@scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech avatar

Fine yes I was mixing up that charging for it and the gotcha of “If you want to use my source code, then your code also needs to be at least GPL”, as in no closed source. So yes, they can make profit off of it, but then they also have to open source their code

TootSweet,

I don’t know if there’s some license out there that allows free sharing of code with a limitation around using it in for-profit products

There’s no reason why such a license couldn’t exist, but if it did/does, it wouldn’t meet the OSI definition of “Open Source” nor the FSF definition of “Free Software”. Both terms require that resale of the software be explicitly allowed.

There are FOSS licenses (notably the GPL) that say that if you do resell (or otherwise redistribute) the software, you have to do so only under the same terms. (That is, you can’t sell a proprietary fork. But you could sell a fork under FOSS terms.) But none that say “no selling.”

Perhyte,

There are FOSS licenses (notably the GPL) that say that if you do resell (or otherwise redistribute) the software, you have to do so only under the same terms. (That is, you can’t sell a proprietary fork. But you could sell a fork under FOSS terms.) But none that say “no selling.”

For many companies (especially large ones), the GPL and similar copyleft licenses may as well mean “no selling”, because they won’t go near it for code that’s incorporated in their own software products. Which is why some projects have such a license but with a “or pay us to get a commercial license” alternative.

Atemu,
@Atemu@lemmy.ml avatar

You are free to use it however you want - but if you start charging for your product I get a cut.

The problem here is who this “I” is. Often times, there are dozens or hundreds of contributors. Do they each get a cut? Do they all get a cut of a cut? How is that cut calculated?

p_q, (edited )

free

open source ≠ free

open source ≈ source code published

it’s free software

lily33,

That’s not the accepted usage of the term, though. Rather, open source = free software.

And while I do like the term free software better, I don’t think trying to start war on which term to use would help anything.

p_q,

free software is relevant

open source is only one point and can also apply to properity software

jack,

open source is only one point and can also apply to properity software

What makes you think that?

lily33,

You can technically can your proprietary software “free” too. But that’s not what the term means. And nether does “open source”.

p_q,

you can do much with free software. depending on the licence, also unfree software. but then it’s no free software anymore

TootSweet,

When I use the term “Open Source” I mean [the OSI definition]opensource.org/osd/), which is what the term meant from its inception. If you want to talk about “source code published” software, use a different term. Don’t appropriate “Open Source” or think you’re representative of the Open Source community.

When you say “free” here, do you mean this or something else?

p_q,

seems like someone tried to solve a problem by declaring

“open source ≈ freesoftware”

You can compile a binary by using the provided code and it gives you a binary, yes.

you modify the code, compile, sell the binary, because “they provided the code” opensours.org said “it means free software” “free as in freedom” so “I am free to do whatever I want with this software.” "

That is untrue. I can open source my product for a reason, but if anyone try to sell it it’s a crime. I openenly show everyone my source code, but without the right licence it’s nothing. often you can’t even compare it to the software running.

FooBarrington,

That is untrue. I can open source my product for a reason, but if anyone try to sell it it’s a crime. I openenly show everyone my source code, but without the right licence it’s nothing. often you can’t even compare it to the software running.

No, that’s not true. If you open source your product, anyone else can sell it just fine. They can’t do so if you don’t open source it (i.e. if you make it source available).

Just because you think “open source” means “source available” doesn’t mean they are legally equivalent.

FooBarrington,

Source code published without being open source is usually called “source available”.

helenslunch,

Its source code is available to the general public, but that’s far from sufficient to qualify as “Open Source.”

The main qualifier for open-source projects is that the source code is open.

p_q,

no, open source doesn’t imply anything other than the source code is published.

you mean free software.

helenslunch,

Huh?

jack,

What do you mean by that

helenslunch,

What do you mean what do I mean? I don’t know how to be more clear.

TootSweet,

“Open” to what? Perusal? Modification? Copying? Distribution? Attack?

The OSI’s definition says it must be open to all of those (except attack which I only added to illustrate how widely differently your statement could be interpreted) and more.

TootSweet,

I mean, Eric Raymond who was one of the original coiners of the term “Open Source” co-founded the Open Source Initiative which still maintains the most official definition of Open Source out there. And the definition explicitly includes the stipulation that in order to be considered “Open Source” it must allow derivative works and no discrimination against persons or groups or fields of endeavor (which implies allowing commercial resale.)

If you want a term that means “the source is available,” go get another term because “Open Source” isn’t it. (In fact, there is a term that means that. It’s “source available.”)

helenslunch,

I mean, some guy can create guidelines for what they personally consider “open source” but the phrase is self-explanatory and you can’t just proclaim it’s untrue because it doesn’t meet your personal preferences.

TootSweet,

I mean, some guy can create guidelines for what they personally consider “general relativity” but the phrase is self-explanatory and you can’t just proclaim it’s untrue because it doesn’t meet your personal preferences.

This community literally uses the OSI Open Source logo as its avatar. Do you also go to AA meetings and insist that “Alcoholics Anonymous” is a club for moonshiners interested in keeping their identities secret?

helenslunch, (edited )

but the phrase is self-explanatory

Uh, no it’s not LOL. Not even a little.

This community literally uses the OSI Open Source logo as its avatar.

…ok? And?

Do you also go to AA meetings and insist that “Alcoholics Anonymous” is a club for moonshiners interested in keeping their identities secret?

I have no idea what you’re on about.

This is more like some guy deciding that “paper shredder” refers specifically and exclusively to using cross-cut shredders and any other type of “paper shredder” doesn’t count.

thejevans,

Uh, no it’s not LOL. Not even a little.

I believe their point here was that your claim that “open source” is self explanatory is wrong. You’ve imprinted your definition onto it and called it “common sense” without thinking further about how how nebulous it is without extra context. This is then driven home by your lack of understanding on the AA discussion.

TootSweet,

Exactly right. Thanks.

helenslunch, (edited )

I understood what their point was. My point is that it actually is. It is not my definition, it’s simply what the string of words mean. Someone else is imprinting their definition. I don’t have a “lack of understanding” of your analogy, it just doesn’t make sense.

Kaldo,
@Kaldo@kbin.social avatar

Someone else is imprinting their definition

I mean yeah, that's how words work? AA has the meaning because a bunch of people imprinted their meaning on it.

Open source has a meaning because a bunch of people imprinted their meaning on it too, it has no relevance to actual words "open" or "source". The issue is that other people are now imprinting their own meaning on it and muddling it instead of following the existing meaning or coming up with their own terminology.

helenslunch,

I mean yeah, that’s how words work?

I mean yeah, that’s exactly my point? LOL you realize you’re arguing against your own argument now, right?

it has no relevance to actual words “open” or “source”.

😂😂😂 OMG this is hilarious. Bye bye now.

TootSweet,

Uh, no it’s not LOL. Not even a little.

Right. Neither is “Open Source.” At least not any more so than “general relativity.”

…ok? And?

And the OSI’s definition of “Open Source” is not just “you can see the source code”. And you’re telling a community explicitly about the OSI’s definition of “Open Source” that “Open Source” doesn’t mean what the OSI says it does.

In here, it most definitely does. And if it doesn’t elsewhere, that’s pretty fucked up and concerning for the future of the Open Source movement. (To which people who claim “Open Source” only means you can see the source code have no valid claim of membership.)

helenslunch,

Right. Neither is “Open Source.” At least not any more so than “general relativity.”

It very obviously is.

And the OSI’s definition of “Open Source” is not just “you can see the source code”

You said that already and I’ve already explained why that’s irrelevant.

And you’re telling a community explicitly about the OSI’s definition of “Open Source” that “Open Source” doesn’t mean what the OSI says it does.

That’s absolutely not what I’m doing. There can be multiple definitions without any of them being wrong. Ever read a dictionary before? Ever seen words that has >1 definition? Spoiler: it’s almost all of them.

Your can say a project is “open source, as defined by OSI” but you can’t just declare other projects aren’t open source because they don’t fit a definition decided by a particular authority.

There are plenty of authorities that define specific words and phrases for specific purposes, they don’t nullify the common basic understanding of those words and phrases.

that’s pretty fucked up

It’s not “fucked up”, it’s a fact. You cannot assign malice to facts. They just are.

BetaDoggo_,

In the case of Machine learning the term has sort of been morphed to mean “open weights” as well as open inference/training code. To me the OSI is just being elitist and gate keeping the term.

jack, (edited )

The term “open source” was confusing from the beginning. Insisting on “free software” has kind of an autistic vibe to it. “Libre” will probably not catch on. I like your idea of just calling it “GPL” or “MIT licenced” software etc

havocpants,

Exactly, “open source” was a dilution of free software in the first place. Kids today.

folkrav,

I’m utterly convinced overloading the term “open” was a very bad mistake in terms of how much confusion it created. Yes, “open-source” in the OSI definition means open to read, but also open to modification and redistribution. Having to make the distinction and explain the difference with “source available” is in itself a failure in communication.

shrugal,

That’s what you get when you use one existing word for a somewhat complex set of principles. It makes it easier to talk about it, because you don’t have to learn new vocabulary or go through the list of requirements every time, but it also opens the door for misinterpretations. Imo it’s good that we have a simple term for it, but we also have to educate people to make sure it doesn’t lose its proper meaning.

It would be nice if the term “open source” could get some kind of legal protection. Like you can’t call your product “cheese” if it doesn’t have at least x% of actual cheese in it.

Kaldo,
@Kaldo@kbin.social avatar

I think the only thing we're missing is the official OSI definition for open-source-for-reading-but-not-modifying so we don't use the same name as for the open-source-for-reading-and-modifying code? The issue seems that we don't have OSI-defined names for both, just for one, so people started misusing it unknowingly while the businesses misused it maliciously.

andruid,

Libre Software was/is the best strict definition of this to me.

doom_and_gloom, (edited )

deleted_by_author

    •
    TootSweet,

    Honestly great question.

    While “Free Software” and “Open Source” have different definitions, and the movements behind them have largely different motivations, in practice I’ve heard mostly that there are no pieces of software that qualify as one but not the other. So in practice, they’re equivalent when referring to software licenses (though not so much when referring to the communities/movements.)

    Are FOSS and Open Source now synonymous because OSI dropped the term free?

    I’m not really sure there’s any sense in which the OSI ever used the term “free.” The Free Software movement used the term “free” and the Open Source movement and the OSI were born out of a splinter group that broke off from the Free Software movement.

    I think terms like FOSS and FLOSS are popular partly because again when speaking of software the two are (or at least in practice might as well be) synonymous.

    I think there’s also a certain extent to which both the Free Software foks and the Open Source folks recognize that a bit of solidarity between the two groups will ultimately benefit both. So each is willing to give nods to the other by sticking an “F” on the front of their “OSS” or an “OSS” on the end of their “FL” or whatever.

    doom_and_gloom, (edited )

    deleted_by_author

    •
    TootSweet,

    why do we have two different terms?

    Well, I do think it’s still quite useful to have separate terms for the movements. I’d say it’s probably safe to say that “Free Software advocates” believe that all software should be FLOSS whereas “Open Source advocates” think it’s fine for FLOSS and proprietary software to coexist in the whole software ecosystem.

    Would we be having issues over the term “source available” vs. “open source” if the Free was never dropped from Free Software?

    That’s an interesting question. The term “Free Software” is kindof tied up in connections to Richard Stallman. (Say what you will about that, but having a well-known personality at the head of a movement, even if it has disadvantages, does have upsides.) And the dude is the avatar of pedantism. And I think to anyone with even a passing familiarity with Stallman, that comes through when you use the term “Free Software.” To the point that it’s hard to imagine the term used to mean something other than the four freedoms.

    Meanwhile, I imagine a lot of people, when they use the term “Open Source” don’t think of any particular person. Eric Raymond and Bruce Parens are much less known than Stallman.

    “Open Source” is a term that’s also much closer to the mainstream. Folks who say “Open Source” are “normies”. If someone uses the term “Free Software” you can likely expect an hour long lecture from them on why the term “GNU Plus Linux” is better than “GNU Slash Linux”.

    I think maybe when companies started “open washing” (a term I just learned) efforts, “Open Source” was a much easier target for dilution than “Free Software.” Because again, when you think of the term “Free Software,” you think of pedantic Stallman listing off the easy-to-enumerate four freedoms. When you think of the term “Open Source,” you probably think of a Firefox logo and not Raymond or Parens and not really the ten specific points in the OSI definition.

    So in a way, I wonder if “Open Source” hasn’t served as a bit of a shield for “Free Software”. Because “Open Source” was the easier target and “Free Software” is a much more niche concept. (And also arguably because Linus/Linux is more associated with Open Source than Free Software.)

    Historically, if the term “Open Source” was never coined, I imagine people would have tried to dilute the term “Free Software”. I suspect they may have had less success, but not no success. And in that case, the term “Free Software” would be eroded today in ways it’s not given that “Open Source” served as a buffer protecting “Free Software.”

    What benefit is there in referring to FOSS as Open Source as opposed to FOSS?

    Ah. Well, I could see people who use the term “Open Source” loosely also using “FOSS” loosely more so than I could see them using “Free Software” loosely. But I suppose if someone usrs the term “FOSS”, there’s… I guess a stronger case that they shouldn’t be using the term loosely than if they’re using the term “Open Source.”

    I’m not saying I’m ok with using the term “Open Source” loosely. But I did admit there may be a possibility we need to start thinking in terms of choosing our battles in the OP.

    pixelscript, (edited )

    This failure of the word “open” to mean one clear and specific thing just feels like an echo of the failure of “free” to mean one clear and specific thing.

    Someone came up with the term “free” in the context of software, and a bunch of people asked, “Ah, so that means I don’t have to pay for it?” And half the room went, “Yep, of course!” and the other half of the room went, “Ehrm, not exactly…” And from that point on, we’ve had to amend the word “free” with awkward qualifiers like “as in freedom, not as in beer”, or attempt to introduce a clarifying companion term like “libre” to try and capture one of the competing meanings.

    I’m sure the “open” in “open source” is doomed to the same fate. “Source available” is to “open source” what “libre” is to “free”. An awkward clarifying companion term that only dorks like us bother to distinguish.

    PropaGandalf,
    @PropaGandalf@lemmy.world avatar

    This is inevitable. You are fighting a fight against the natural development of a language. Maybe we really should start caring more about licenses but the terms will be used by other people nevertheless like they want.

    TootSweet,

    You are fighting a fight against the natural development of a language.

    Perhaps, but I fully believe the more successful I and folks who join me in that fight are, the more beneficial it will ultimately be to basically everybody who uses software.

    wiki_me,

    Best you can do is accuse something of being open washing, or correct people by saying that it does not fit the OSI definition which is widely accepted (it’s based on debian guidelines) and the software is at best “partially open source”.

    Having a github page with a list of problematic projects and licenses could be useful.

    beeng,

    ClosedAI

    ZILtoid1991,
    @ZILtoid1991@kbin.social avatar

    ClosedAL

    I'm from the generation that used to have sound cards, and I'm very sad about what Creative did to the industry...

    TootSweet,

    Oh shit! “Open washing” is a term I never knew I needed in my lexicon until now.

    And yes. A running list of such projects would be awesome to have. I migrated all my projects to Gitlab when Microsoft bought Github (in retrospect, I wish I’d gone to Codeberg) but I’d love to see a project that collected examples like that in one place. I could probably be persuaded to start/maintain it. (As long as it’s not on Github. Lol.)

    wiki_me,

    That might be useful if someone will want to learn if a particular project is not really open source, and raise awareness to the issue of open washing, if it will get enough links it might appear on search results raising even more awareness to the issue.

    You could always start it, ask for positive feed back saying it will motivate you and validate that the efforts you are doing are useful, you could later abandon it and someone else might take it and continue to maintaining it.

    ImpossibilityBox,

    Can we get a term like this for AI. I’m so goddam sick and tired of everything being called AI that clearly and obviously isn’t.

    We developed a system that looks for red and when it sees red it KNoOOoOAwwWWss that it is seeing red and does stuff. It’s a super effective, ground breaking, world shaping, paradigm changing AI system. Give us money please.

    Kaldo, (edited )
    @Kaldo@kbin.social avatar

    Muddying the waters is the oldest trick in the books, big corporations have even started doing it with "indie" games - Dave the Diver is stylized and marketed as an indie game despite being developed by a division of a multi-billion company Nexon.

    I definitely have an issue with it as well, it's really hard to say whether something is actually FOSS nowadays or not, and whether it can be taken away or acquired by someone else down the line. That could be my fault as well since I never bothered to learn about the licenses beyond what MIT / Apache2 are, and even those I understand superficially.

    There should absolutely be more pushback for things like these though.

    bitwolf,

    There is

    • OSS
    • FOSS
    • FLOSS

    Don’t get excited about OSS it’s just a distribution model (and one that is popular for commercial start ups right now).

    You’re looking for FLOSS.

    toastal,

    There is also copyfair & copyfarleft

    nodiet,

    Huh? I only know copyleft, what are those?

    toastal,

    Imagine if the commons of code required corporations (not worker-owned) recipropcate value to a project. These licenses aren’t FSF-approved but there are valid ciriticisms of how big businesses are getting more value than they put in & how an indie dev maintaining an important library is barely scraping by.

    Worth a read: lipu.dgold.eu/original-sin

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • uselessserver093
  • Food
  • aaaaaaacccccccce
  • [email protected]
  • test
  • CafeMeta
  • testmag
  • MUD
  • RhythmGameZone
  • RSS
  • dabs
  • Socialism
  • KbinCafe
  • TheResearchGuardian
  • Ask_kbincafe
  • oklahoma
  • feritale
  • SuperSentai
  • KamenRider
  • All magazines
    •