11–20 of 61 posts
Honest question; what does OSI actually do? I am involved with a number of OS projects and not once has OSI come up in any context, be it compliance, governance, education and so on.
As a reminder, the OSI was formed as a corporate-friendly foil to Stallman's FSF. This is how the OSI once described its own history on its website: > The conferees decided it was time to dump the moralizing and confrontational attitude that had been associated with "free software" in the past and sell the idea strictly on the same pragmatic, business-case grounds that had motivated Netscape. They brainstormed about…
> The GPL and AGPL are some of the only licenses not to get totally sucked up in corporate interests Neither of these licenses address the gigantic "internal use" loophole FSF is also just as dogmatic as OSI in it's refusal to distinguish corporations from individuals
Honest question; what does OSI actually do? I am involved with a number of OS projects and not once has OSI come up in any context, be it compliance, governance, education and so on.
They own the trademark of "Open Source" and use it to exercise a right to define which licences are truly open source. Now, I guess they are becoming involved in the question of what it means for an AI model to be open source, hence the politicking Previously, if your project used one of the main OS licences you were good as far as they were concerned. They mainly existed to avoid lawyers coming up with licenses that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The GPL and AGPL are some of the only licenses not to get totally sucked up in corporate interests Neither of these licenses address the gigantic "internal use" loophole FSF is also just as dogmatic as OSI in it's refusal to distinguish corporations from individuals
As all is based on copyright you can't distinguish between individuals and organisations as the law does not.
Edit: I'll simplify the above to "the statement in the parent comment is demonstrably not true"
As a reminder, the OSI was formed as a corporate-friendly foil to Stallman's FSF. This is how the OSI once described its own history on its website: > The conferees decided it was time to dump the moralizing and confrontational attitude that had been associated with "free software" in the past and sell the idea strictly on the same pragmatic, business-case grounds that had motivated Netscape. They brainstormed about…
> The GPL and AGPL are some of the only licenses not to get totally sucked up in corporate interests Neither of these licenses address the gigantic "internal use" loophole FSF is also just as dogmatic as OSI in it's refusal to distinguish corporations from individuals
The same goes for the internal use loophole: the corporation should be required to provide its internal users with certain freedoms, and if they do that then mission accomplished.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The GPL and AGPL are some of the only licenses not to get totally sucked up in corporate interests Neither of these licenses address the gigantic "internal use" loophole FSF is also just as dogmatic as OSI in it's refusal to distinguish corporations from individuals
As all is based on copyright you can't distinguish between individuals and organisations as the law does not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As all is based on copyright you can't distinguish between individuals and organisations as the law does not.
I guess I must have imagined all the licenses which treat individual and corporate use as distinct. Edit: I'll simplify the above to "the statement in the parent comment is demonstrably not true"
Honest question; what does OSI actually do? I am involved with a number of OS projects and not once has OSI come up in any context, be it compliance, governance, education and so on.
Honest question; what does OSI actually do? I am involved with a number of OS projects and not once has OSI come up in any context, be it compliance, governance, education and so on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The GPL and AGPL are some of the only licenses not to get totally sucked up in corporate interests Neither of these licenses address the gigantic "internal use" loophole FSF is also just as dogmatic as OSI in it's refusal to distinguish corporations from individuals
I don't think you need to distinguish individuals from corporations in order to advance human freedom. You can make the licenses such that any corporation that uses them to provide services to users must provide the users with required freedoms. If businesses can make money while respecting those terms, all the better! The same goes for the internal use loophole: the corporation should be required to provide its inte…