Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

opensource.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 160 posts

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

#31

Post by bachmeier »

joebob42 wrote: post #5

I 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 .

I don't see it that way. It's the standard usage of the term in 2022. If you sell someone a red car but deliver a black car, you can't claim to have your own definition of red. I think it's important that this involves participants that are familiar with the industry. You might have a stronger argument if it were non-technical executives in the paper industry.

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

#32

Post by tomnipotent »

busterarm wrote: post #19
kabdib wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Except they didn't create the MIT license, or BSD, or Apache, or any of the software that built the movement. It's an advocacy group that tries very hard to insert itself into the conversation, and coining a term doesn't give them stewardship or ownership.

I don't imagine the F/OSS ecosystem would be much different today had the OSD/OSI never come to be, unlike say the Apache Foundation or GNU projects.

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

#33

Post by giantg2 »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #27
giantg2 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it closed source if the source is openly available to view?

There's plenty of closed source software where you can view the source. Open source just means the ability to modify, use and potentially redistribute according to the terms of the license.

But the quote also says it's unlicensed.

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

#34

Post by mkr-hn »

glind72 wrote: post #4

This is really interesting. Specifically this quote "it’s false advertising to claim that software is “open source” when it’s not licensed under an open source license". Also, is opensource.org and the OSI the only organization that can define it and if so should they be? To me this is more about false advertising and changing a license. Another reason to look at a tool like debricked for license management.

Think of this in terms of a brand defending their trademark to avoid losing it through dilution. It's Open Source, a term they created, not a generic concept "open source." I don't like them owning a term that feels like it should be generic and communally defined, but it's not, and they do.

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

#35

Post by mindcrime »

busterarm wrote: post #19
kabdib wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

FWIW, while I agree with the general sentiment of your post, I understand that there is some debate about whether or not OSI - strictly speaking - coined the term "Open Source" or not. That is, I've seen reference to citations of people showing use of the phrase "open source" that predate OSI by a decade or more. I never dug deeply into the issue because I don't consider it terribly important. I consider the OSD to be the effective, de facto (but not de jure) definition of Open Source regardless of this particular minor quibble.

Still, it could matter it it ever came down to legal proceedings. But in everyday, colloquial terms, I think the OSD just "is" the definition of Open Source.

Edit: Yeah, see @CogitoCogito's post for more on the "Open Source predates OSI" argument. The counter-argument, I suppose, is that they didn't "coin" the phrase in the strictest sense, but were possibly the first to rigorously define it and give it meaning within a specific context. Whether or not one accepts that argument, or a similar argument, is obviously open to debate.

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

#36

Post by mintplant »

joshuaissac wrote: post #2

I think the salient point of the article is this: > However, the court held that it was improper for the defendants to remove the Commons Clause, and therefore the defendants’ claims in advertising that its ONgDB software was open source was false advertising. > Even though the AGPL has a clause specifically allowing downstream recipients to remove "further restrictions" like the Commons Clause, the court stopped the…

This is the part of the decision I don't understand. The AGPL seems pretty clear:

> All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term.

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

#37

Post by giantg2 »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #28
giantg2 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it closed source if the source is openly available to view?

If it's not possible for people to (legally) use that source, or to modify or redistribute it, then it's not open source, it's just shared source / source available ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software ).

If it's unlicensed (in the quote) and source is available, then what restrictions are there?

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

#38

Post by busterarm »

CogitoCogito wrote: post #29
busterarm wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They didn’t coin the term: https://lunduke.substack.com/p/who-really-coined-the-term-op...

From the perspective of popularizing and bringing it into mainstream usage, they surely did.

Digging further is for extreme nitpickers.

Gutenberg didn't "invent" the printing press either. Movable type dates back to 11th century China if you really want accurate attribution. Except for the purposes of the history of the modern world, Gutenberg's invention is most relevant/accurate.

My internet usage started on university systems back in the 80s, along with BBS and usenet and I had never heard the term Open Source even once until 1998.

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

#40

Post by rectang »

giantg2 wrote: post #37
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's not possible for people to (legally) use that source, or to modify or redistribute it, then it's not open source, it's just shared source / source available ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software ).

If it's unlicensed (in the quote) and source is available, then what restrictions are there?

You have no license to use it. Any use would be infringing.
Post reply on HN