Court finds calling stuff open source when it's not is false advertising • Hacker News Board

Re: Court finds calling stuff open source when it's not is false advertising

#131

Post by drdaeman » Thu, Mar 17, 2022, 10:22 PM UTC

Gigachad wrote: post #130

ttybird2 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OSI has been trying really hard to claim the term for themselves in a dishonest way, even though they were not the ones that invented it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26507460

The OSI definition of open source matches what almost everyone thinks of open source. It's the most useful definition. The Stallman gang have wasted over a decade trying to redefine open source to weaker terms making it useless and insisting that everyone use "Free software" instead which is insane since the world does and always will think of free as in money.

We all may have different opinions about Stallman, but one - I believe - undeniable thing is that he's an extreme purist/idealist, and he would ceaselessly fight for any cause he believes in. Even for a totally lost one. And here, "open source" is practical, but "free/libre software" captures the essence (which "open source" misses).

Re: Court finds calling stuff open source when it's not is false advertising

#132

Post by Gigachad » Thu, Mar 17, 2022, 11:09 PM UTC

drdaeman wrote: post #131

Gigachad wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The OSI definition of open source matches what almost everyone thinks of open source. It's the most useful definition. The Stallman gang have wasted over a decade trying to redefine open source to weaker terms making it useless and insisting that everyone use "Free software" instead which is insane since the world does and always will think of free as in money.

We all may have different opinions about Stallman, but one - I believe - undeniable thing is that he's an extreme purist/idealist, and he would ceaselessly fight for any cause he believes in. Even for a totally lost one. And here, "open source" is practical, but "free/libre software" captures the essence (which "open source" misses).

Open source as defined by the OSI which is what most people agree with, is exactly identical to what RMS calls free software. RMS wants open source to mean what most people call "source available".

We have the terms source available and open source which are well understood and has no ambiguity but RMS and the FSF want to push their free software term and have to change open source so their term isn't obsolete.

It's nothing to do with being a purist or ideal. Because the wider understanding is exactly as pure and ideal. They just aren't the words RMS wants us to use for those meanings. He is obsessive but not for any real gain.

Re: Court finds calling stuff open source when it's not is false advertising

#133

Post by yawaramin » Thu, Mar 17, 2022, 11:11 PM UTC

Beltalowda wrote: post #127

bawolff wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really convincing. Sure the term "open" and "source" have appeared in conjunction together previously, but it was rare for it to be used as a proper noun, instead of an adjective describing a noun, and even if it was, it was OSI that populized the term. Regardless of any historical context, in contemporary usage, "open source" has a commonly understand meaning and its what the OSI says it is. Other meaning…

> "open source" has a commonly understand meaning and its what the OSI says it is I would contest this, based on the many discussions there have been on HN about this, as well as many people (including many "normal" software developers who are not deeply invested in open source) I've met and talked to over the years having only a vague notion of what "open source" is exactly (often being something along the lines of…

I think it's first important to define what we're talking about, before talking about it. If a certain set of people have 'a very clear and very specific meaning' of what it is, and another set 'doesn't really have the clear specific meaning', then I think it's pretty obvious which definition we should go with.

Re: Court finds calling stuff open source when it's not is false advertising

#134

Post by User23 » Thu, Mar 17, 2022, 11:22 PM UTC

Gigachad wrote: post #132

drdaeman wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We all may have different opinions about Stallman, but one - I believe - undeniable thing is that he's an extreme purist/idealist, and he would ceaselessly fight for any cause he believes in. Even for a totally lost one. And here, "open source" is practical, but "free/libre software" captures the essence (which "open source" misses).

Open source as defined by the OSI which is what most people agree with, is exactly identical to what RMS calls free software. RMS wants open source to mean what most people call "source available". We have the terms source available and open source which are well understood and has no ambiguity but RMS and the FSF want to push their free software term and have to change open source so their term isn't obsolete. It's…

It has to do with the English meaning of words both generally and for software in particular. Free, as in freedom, is a much stronger word than open. This distinction is longstanding in the business. See for example the Open Group[1]. Those of us who can remember the past are well aware that the OSI specifically tried to co-opt the free software movement for commercial gain and specifically used the weasel term open to appeal to the suits without any of that pesky user freedom.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Group

Re: Court finds calling stuff open source when it's not is false advertising

#135

Post by SLWW » Thu, Mar 17, 2022, 11:29 PM UTC

When licensing something open-source; there should be proof that, within reasonable allowance, that the source should be viewable, downloadable, and modifiable by any customer or person who is aware of the software.

I don't get how so many companies say they are "open source" but there's not a single line of uncompiled code available even on request.

Re: Court finds calling stuff open source when it's not is false advertising

#136

Post by pie_flavor » Thu, Mar 17, 2022, 11:37 PM UTC

giantg2 wrote: post #111

pie_flavor wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original license is AGPL with an added non-commercial clause. To say 'the original license forbade that', where 'that' is being FOSS, is to either agree with me, or to claim that the court is instead offering opinion on what constitutes 'free', which is five times as loaded as 'open source'.

This is a false dichotomy. I don't have to agree with you as the elements of your example are substantially different from the case, leaving other possible outcomes. This ruling does not create precedent on the definition of open source. The court is addressing the violations of the terms of the license and the misrepresentation of being a drop in replacement. Can you quote the ruling where it defines open source, or…

They specifically cite the misrepresentation of the software as 'free and open source', they specifically say it's literally false as opposed to simply misleading, and they specifically say it's because they couldn't remove the Commons Clause. That means they are, in fact, judging whether the definition of free and open source includes the Commons Clause, and specifically judging that it doesn't. Either that means they're judging 'open source', or they're judging 'free', or 'free and open source' is its own third term that doesn't quite mean either.

Re: Court finds calling stuff open source when it's not is false advertising

#137

Post by pie_flavor » Thu, Mar 17, 2022, 11:46 PM UTC

teilo wrote: post #121

pie_flavor wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure they're free. I can get them for $0. If that statement is wrong, then 'open source just means source-available' is also wrong, for the same reasons. People who release OSI 'open source' software call it open source, people like GitHub who talk about licenses use OSI's definition, and people who release closed-source-available software clarify that it's not 'open source', using those words. The only people who tr…

The "Free" in "FOSS" has never meant $0. That's a possible and common consequence of "free," but not its definition. In fact, "free" does not necessarily imply $0. I can take an MIT licensed codebase, compile it, and sell it, and break no license. I am "free" to sell this code and products derived therefrom. I am also "free" to give it away. But what I cannot do is take a piece of software that is not "free" and adve…

The point of the post you're replying to is that you cannot simultaneously act like 'free software' has one canonical definition which the software definitely violates, while 'open source software' is the nebulous one which doesn't necessarily mean anything more than its availability in source form. If 'open source' doesn't have to mean what everyone who actually uses it means by it, then neither does 'free software'; if 'open source' can just mean source-available then 'free software' can just mean software for $0; if advertising your software as 'free' is false advertising if you're explicitly violating the FSF's definition, then advertising your software as 'open source' is false advertising if you're explicitly violating the OSI's definition.

Re: Court finds calling stuff open source when it's not is false advertising

#138

Post by kube-system » Thu, Mar 17, 2022, 11:50 PM UTC

prepend wrote: post #116

kube-system wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The organizations that you think are credible, are credible. The term is not legally protected. Personally, when Subway calls their sandwiches "good", I think they are actually making non-good sandwiches, and they're trying to redefine the term. Both "good" and "open source" are descriptive terms that are subjective. The OSI recognizes this themselves: > "Open Source" is not and cannot become a trademark. > there is…

> The organizations that you think are credible, are credible. The term is not legally protected. Credible to me, but I don’t get to decide what’s credible. We live in a society, etc etc. that’s why I asked. Subway can’t call the cold cut combo sandwich a fried chicken sandwich even though I think they are a credible organization. They would be wrong. If there’s some other org that is credible and is credible using o…

The reasons people can’t sell a product with a blatantly wrong label is because it is fraudulent. However, when words gain widespread use to mean something else, then people can certainly use them that way.

OSI might vehemently argue against people using “open source” to describe source available works, but… people do it. Someone does it in every comment section discussing this topic. People post their source code on GitHub without a license and call it open source. For several decades before the OSI was founded, the phrase “open source intelligence” was used to describe works that were public available, not those that were licensed in any particular way. It is, factually, not uncommon for people to use it differently than the OSI prescribes.

The fact that people have a disagreement on the use of the term is exactly why people have leeway in the use of the term.

To use food as an example, there are a ton of foods that are culinarily labeled “incorrectly”. The reason why they are legal to sell is because people used the words that way.

If you want to use “fried” as an example: consider refried beans. They are often not even fried once!

https://wearenotfoodies.com/culinary-misnomers-or-danish-pas...

“Organic” is a different story, it’s regulated in many places.

Re: Court finds calling stuff open source when it's not is false advertising

#139

Post by giantg2 » Thu, Mar 17, 2022, 11:52 PM UTC

pie_flavor wrote: post #136

giantg2 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a false dichotomy. I don't have to agree with you as the elements of your example are substantially different from the case, leaving other possible outcomes. This ruling does not create precedent on the definition of open source. The court is addressing the violations of the terms of the license and the misrepresentation of being a drop in replacement. Can you quote the ruling where it defines open source, or…

They specifically cite the misrepresentation of the software as 'free and open source', they specifically say it's literally false as opposed to simply misleading, and they specifically say it's because they couldn't remove the Commons Clause. That means they are, in fact, judging whether the definition of free and open source includes the Commons Clause, and specifically judging that it doesn't. Either that means th…

As a free and open source replacement. The sentence include replacement.

Re: Court finds calling stuff open source when it's not is false advertising

#140

Post by Beltalowda » Fri, Mar 18, 2022, 12:03 AM UTC

yawaramin wrote: post #133

Beltalowda wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "open source" has a commonly understand meaning and its what the OSI says it is I would contest this, based on the many discussions there have been on HN about this, as well as many people (including many "normal" software developers who are not deeply invested in open source) I've met and talked to over the years having only a vague notion of what "open source" is exactly (often being something along the lines of…

I think it's first important to define what we're talking about, before talking about it. If a certain set of people have 'a very clear and very specific meaning' of what it is, and another set 'doesn't really have the clear specific meaning', then I think it's pretty obvious which definition we should go with.

It's not obvious at all. There are many people who have all sorts of very specific ideas about language and how it ought to be used. They are usually ignored by everyone except themselves and people who agree with them already.

I don't get why so many people are so obsessed with language. Over the last few decades terabytes of data has been used to discus this, and to what effect? I would actually argue it's been a net-negative since it has put many people off, and has been a distraction from far more pressing matters.