Open Source, church is in session
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| azerthoth Jun 23, 2007 9:58 PM EDT |
Forgive the religious connotation, however nothing else I can think of at this moment so well defines my feelings towards this.
Quoting: to use the term 'open source' to refer to software licensed under an OSI-approved license Who what where in when did this self appointed group become the end all be all final say in what is correct? It smacks of so many other "only true" ideologies. A single man or organization who can concievably come cross wise to RMS and blithely declare that the GPL no longer meets their requirements (Like no one has ever gotten crossways with Mr. Stallman before). Perhaps decide because the Linux kernel hasn't upgraded its license that the kernel itself no longer qualifies under their definition of Open Source and therefor can no longer use that term to describe that endevour? Am I taking things to an extreme? You bet. There are times that it takes pushing things to their breaking point to see how absolutely absurd things can get. Like many other groups claiming that theirs is the one and only "true" way there is no lack of people willing to step up and say the same thing. The sad part is every one of them is as correct as any other. |
| hughesjr Jun 23, 2007 11:23 PM EDT |
Well ... I have to respectfully disagree. Open Source needs to have a definition. Open Source needs to keep the Source open .... not just provide the source. I can provide the source, but if I put on restrictions in the license that you CAN NOT modify and redistribute that source in a derived work, then that license is not "Open Source". It is SOMETHING ELSE (have you guys seen the AFLAC goat commercial :D): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtBirwSpLJY I have no problem with a company DOING that license -- but it is not "OPEN SOURCE" -- any more than Microsoft's XML documents are "OPEN SOURCE". A company that puts those kind of restrictions in their license should not be able to call it "OPEN SOURCE". That is not a religious issue ... it is a reuse of code issue. The ability to reuse code in anyway is critical in the OPEN SOURCE model ... anything else is, well, "SOMETHING ELSE". |
| dinotrac Jun 24, 2007 4:01 AM EDT |
I believe the time for and usefulness of the term "open source" has passed. Returning to "free software" makes more sense anyway. As a marketing tool, open source was useful in promoting the utility of free software. However, in promoting the utility, open source focused on an essential but insufficient aspect of free software: the availability of source code. Free software is about being able to use, modify, and distribute software freely. It is not about source code. Source code is the essential instrumentality that makes free software possible, nothing more and nothing less. My experience with free software in the workplace is that a lot more people take advantage of the freedom than use the source. |
| Scott_Ruecker Jun 24, 2007 4:27 AM EDT |
I think that someone in the FOSS community needs to define just exactly what "Open Source" means in the context of computer software. If the consensus is that it is OSI's job then so be it. The current ambiguity and its subsequent use by entities that either use it because of its "buzzword" status and/or use by those who want to purposely blur and twist its meaning needs to stop. I think we can all agree that OOXML is not Open Source Software, and that is only the most obvious example of its misuse. azerthoth: I can understand your trepidation in having one group decide that it is their solemn duty to establish and defend its meaning and use but it will certainly take more than just the OSI to make it happen. The OSDL, LF, several of the major distro's and most likely Linus himself will have to create a unified front for the people who misuse the words "Open Source" to stop. I am glad that someone has finally decided to at least try and do something about it and start the process. I am not an Open Source License expert but the OSI list of "approved" licenses doesn't look like it will be that hard for the community to agree on. If someone doesn't do something soon the words "Open Source" will lose their meaning, if not be completely bastardized and used as a tool against the FOSS community. That is worse than the OSI controlling their meaning. |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 24, 2007 4:36 AM EDT |
They are, at least, stepping forward to do so. For that I salute them. |
| DarrenR114 Jun 24, 2007 8:59 AM EDT |
@Dino and other "oldtimers" - Do you recall back about 1997-98 when ownership of the trademark on the term "Open Source" was at the center of controversy between the "Open Source Initiative" and other groups? Edited to add: According to this article at "answers.com", the servicemark "Open Source" has been "abandoned": http://www.answers.com/topic/alternative-terms-for-free-soft... |
| dinotrac Jun 24, 2007 9:47 AM EDT |
Darren - I don't recall, but I thought that Open Source was determined to be too generic to qualify for Federal trademark protection. |
| azerthoth Jun 24, 2007 9:50 AM EDT |
Looking at the OSI list makes it even clearer that there are inconsistencies in what license qualifies for Open Source. For example while it may be perfectly legal under license for GPL'd software to use BSD code the same is not true in reverse. So which of these defines Open Source? According to the OSI both do and either is perfectly acceptable. For this we dont need to enter into the endless debate as to which is better as they are only being used for example. In my mind though a distinction between the two is that one allows for code to be locked in to propriety and the other absolutely refuses it, thereby making it automatically proprietary in its own right. Now comes along a group that wishes to defend the term Open Source with a definition so broad as to be semantically meaningless, and even worse, not understanding the contradictions in its own views. However that same group is now wishing to use its own definition to be the sole center for defense of the term. This is ludicrous, before the OSI can take up the defense of a term, a concept I'm not comfortable with to start with, they really really need to pin down exactly what it means. From the example its rather obvious that one of the two can not qualify as Open Source under any stricter definition. Without that stricter definition though the "There can be only one" (should have used that reference in the title) ideology falls flat and is meaningless. |
| dinotrac Jun 24, 2007 9:57 AM EDT |
>In my mind though a distinction between the two is that one allows for code to be locked in to propriety and the other absolutely refuses it, thereby making it automatically proprietary in its own right. Not sure what you're referring to... free v. open source or GPL v BSD? In either case, I think you're just a bit off-base. The BSD license allows you to incorporate BSD'd software into proprietary products, but that doesn't change in any way the freedom of the original software. As to open source vs free, I have always preferred the original idea behind OSI -- open source is free software presented differently. Even today, I believe that there is only 1 OSI approved license (don't remember what it is, though I believe it is used for only a single piece of software) that is not classified by the FSF as a free license. |
| azerthoth Jun 24, 2007 10:16 AM EDT |
>In either case, I think you're just a bit off-base. The BSD license allows you to incorporate BSD'd software into proprietary products, but that doesn't change in any way the freedom of the original software. That actually goes straight to the heart of the matter. Again without entering into which of the two used in the example is better, and as example only as a sample of the myriad of OSI recognized licenses. The problem is in definition or lack thereof. If we take a hard look at the other licenses we can be fairly assured that we will find other contradictions which when taken as a whole is like so much dandelion fluff. It looks like a unified structure until a good hard wind comes along and then falls apart to be scattered everywhere. |
| dinotrac Jun 24, 2007 10:21 AM EDT |
>That actually goes straight to the heart of the matter. Hmmm. Considering that the BSD license is an FSF recognized free software license, and one that predates the GPL (Well, almost, the original BSD license contained an advertising clause), are you saying that the heart of the matter is that there is no serious difference between free and open source (as in real open source, not the phony baloney stuff)? In that case, we agree. |
| azerthoth Jun 24, 2007 10:39 AM EDT |
*sigh*
I shouldn't have named them, you seem to be getting caught up on it. It would make no difference had I called them instead as A and B. You can take nearly any of the licenses off of the OSI list and compare it with any of the others on the list and find conflicting or contradicting bits. When taking the contradictions as a whole and removing them you and up with "There is software, and you can do things with it" *edit* and your right I don't think that we are disagreeing. */edit* |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!