> don't call it FOSS
The grandparent comment clearly said OSS.
If I can look at it, that's open source software to me, you can define that phrase however you want and I'm happy with that too :)
In the case of the Free Software Definition, this makes perfect sense: the FSF wants people to have certain freedoms at work, as well as freedom in their personal lives.
The other challenge is that turning an open source project into a proprietary project isn't as simple as changing the license and asking for money. You need to build an entire business from scratch, and learn to close sales somehow (or sell to consumers). This will take up at least half your time.
http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html
> an open source code model ... Individuals can use OpenDOS source for personal use at no cost. Individuals and organizations desiring to commercially redistribute Caldera OpenDOS must acquire a license with an associated small fee.
If you asked any reasonable person what the opposite of "closed source" is, you're going to get a uniform answer from the vast majority or respondents, and a small, irritating answer from a small, increasingly irrelevant group group of folks. I understand the distinction that "source available" aspires to achieve, but it's such an unappetizing term of art that you may as well call it "I can't believe it's not open source".
Champagne, Chocolate, Open Source... they're all noble but doomed uphill battles in colloquialism. Everyone knows what you mean.
If you want to be correct, be truly pedantic, instead of shifting the ambiguity: French Champagne, Belgian Chocolate, OSI Approved License.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a diehard FOSS supporter, I sponsor and contribute, I encourage my employers to be good global citizens with respect to FOSS and have complied with licenses by releasing modifications under appropriate licenses. I even pay Drew DeVault money. But ultimately he and everyone else arguing to enshrine the term "open source" will couple the fate of their opinions to that of the OSI and at best, it will all be a footnote in the pages of history.
Will we be using the same OSI approved licenses in 10, 50, 100, 1000 years? Will the OSI permit term "open source" to be used to refer to something other than the current licenses?
As far as I can tell, it's been a success. The recent batch of nonfree licenses have all had to emphasize that they are not open source in the face of public backlash. Making euphemisms like "source available" unappetizing is exactly the point.
Furthermore, the OSI is just a group, as is the FSF. If the OSI and FSF folded tomorrow the definitions of "open source" and "free software" would not change. It's not necessary for the OSI to approve a license for the software to be open source, so "OSI Approved License" is not sufficient. "Licensed on terms compatible with the Open Source Definition" might be more accurate, but "open source" seems like an adequate shorthand.
I agree with you, but this is a controversial opinion which is the root of my frustration. OSI tries really hard to own "open source" as a term and while I'm not against the OSD I am against the gate keeping I see.
Like any person or institution, the OSI is fallible. It's like saying that only a certain organization can define what Red is, and now look what we have with Pantone.
And this is nothing like what Adobe and Pantone did.
The more appropriate analogy would be if the Sugar Free Initiative defined "sugar free" and then you correct me by saying "actually that beverage isn't sugar free, it's artificially sweetened".
The world would be a better, more accessible place if we instead focused on what things are or are not, like preferring "OSI Approved License" over "open source" rather than needlessly conflate complex meaning with otherwise simple terminology.
Sure, let's go with "sugar free". Should I be allowed to decide that it only refers to cane sugar, and so sell food full of HFCS that's labeled as sugar free?
Most GNU licenses tell users what they can and can't do with software, which is the opposite of freedom.
BSD-2 licenses are freer.
I suspect by 'free', GNU licenses aren't really referring to user-freedom more so source-code-freedom.
It all depends on the developer's objectives, no doubt.
The additional freedom that BSD licences provide is freedom for developers to do what they like, not anything to do with users.
(The biggest practical advantage of a BSD licence for most developers is that if you use one when publishing your code while you work for a company, you yourself will still be able to reuse that code after you leave.)
I think it's basically the software equivalent of the Paradox of Tolerance.
GPL3 cracks down on TiVo style lockdowns:
Here is an encrypted binary and source code. No existing computer will run either without a secret key you cannot have.
AGPL cracks down on Google style lockdowns:
You can't have binaries or sources, but you can use this GPL software as long as you agree to a long and ever changing EULA that includes clauses for surveillance, binding arbitration and worse.
BSD licenses are only freer for developers, not for end users. The F in FOSS refers to the users' freedoms, not the developer's / vendor's freedoms.
PS: I love how one gets flagged for expressing an opinion. Public lynching and censorship rather than debate.
Here is a device running Linux and a proprietary binary. The proprietary binary will stop working if you modify and reinstall Linux.
This isn't prevented even with GPLv3. Also even GPLv2 has an implied right to install and run modified versions.
https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017... https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t...