so now open source is the licensing on not whether the source code is freely visible?
"this unlicensed project is closed source, source code is free to browse >here<"
Court finds calling stuff open source when it's not is false advertising
11–20 of 160 posts
Re: Court finds calling stuff open source when it's not is false advertising
#12Does anyone recommend some documentations to know all the licences vs open source? I'm thinking of launching one of our project in open source but don't want to end up in this kind or articles ^^
https://opensource.org/licenses/category is the list of all Open Source licenses vetted by the OSI (open source initiative).
Other licenses may be open source, but you'd probably have to get lawyers involved to make sure. So it's better to just pick a license which the OSI considers Open Source.
If you don't want to rely on just the OSI, you can also check what the Free Software Foundation, Debian and Red Hat think of the license you've picked.
Re: Court finds calling stuff open source when it's not is false advertising
#13I don't like that OSI seems to somehow come away with this (at least as framed here) with control of the term. I agree just calling whatever nonsense open-source is problematic, but I don't agree it has to be one of their licenses to be open source at all .
That part seemed like their own spin on the decision, to me. I agree with you: they shouldn’t control the term.
They determined the guidelines of what constitutes being Open Source.
Absolutely they should control the term. Just look at all of the companies out there with "source-available" licenses masquerading as Open Source. Neo4j themselves here uses "Open Source" in all of their marketing materials and should be just as guilty as this fork of false advertising.
Re: Court finds calling stuff open source when it's not is false advertising
#14What court? Site wont load
Re: Court finds calling stuff open source when it's not is false advertising
#15I don't like that OSI seems to somehow come away with this (at least as framed here) with control of the term. I agree just calling whatever nonsense open-source is problematic, but I don't agree it has to be one of their licenses to be open source at all .
That part seemed like their own spin on the decision, to me. I agree with you: they shouldn’t control the term.
I disagree with some of their requirements for open source licenses, and will continue to call the code that I have open sourced over the years as "open source" despite them.
Their attempt to occupy the term is a little offensive.
Correction: They came up with the name, so it's theirs. I'll leave my public embarrassment here.
Re: Court finds calling stuff open source when it's not is false advertising
#16so now open source is the licensing on not whether the source code is freely visible? "this unlicensed project is closed source, source code is free to browse >here<"
How is it closed source if the source is openly available to view?
Re: Court finds calling stuff open source when it's not is false advertising
#17I don't like that OSI seems to somehow come away with this (at least as framed here) with control of the term. I agree just calling whatever nonsense open-source is problematic, but I don't agree it has to be one of their licenses to be open source at all .
In practice I don't think it's just OSI which gets to decide this.
Debian and Red Hat have their own teams determining whether something is Open Source enough to allow into their distributions, and obviously the Free Software Foundation keeps their own list of licenses which they consider Free Software.
If these groups of people disagree on whether a particular license is Free/Open Source software, it's not going to be considered an Open Source license by everyone.
Re: Court finds calling stuff open source when it's not is false advertising
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
That part seemed like their own spin on the decision, to me. I agree with you: they shouldn’t control the term.
They determined the guidelines of what constitutes being Open Source. Absolutely they should control the term. Just look at all of the companies out there with "source-available" licenses masquerading as Open Source. Neo4j themselves here uses "Open Source" in all of their marketing materials and should be just as guilty as this fork of false advertising.
OSI doesn't need to control what licenses qualify as "open source" for neo4j to be sued for false advertising.
Re: Court finds calling stuff open source when it's not is false advertising
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
That part seemed like their own spin on the decision, to me. I agree with you: they shouldn’t control the term.
I disagree with some of their requirements for open source licenses, and will continue to call the code that I have open sourced over the years as "open source" despite them. Their attempt to occupy the term is a little offensive. Correction: They came up with the name, so it's theirs. I'll leave my public embarrassment here.
They occupy the term because they literally coined it, if you know your history.[1]
OS came to us from the OSD, written by the OSI and after hot debate in the early days of what should and shouldn't be Free Software. It was specifically a reaction to the FSF and a rejection of that group's activism, which didn't fit what they were trying to do.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software (specifically the first section starting with End of the 90s)
Re: Court finds calling stuff open source when it's not is false advertising
#20so now open source is the licensing on not whether the source code is freely visible? "this unlicensed project is closed source, source code is free to browse >here<"
What? Open source was always about the license, and has never included "shared source" / "source available".