31–40 of 61 posts
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
Is there a license that does address that loophole?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They review licenses, and act as a sort of PR team for the Free Software movement. The whole point is to make Free Software not seem too scary to businesses.
In that context it is important to differentiate Free from Open Source software. The OSI is specifically built with a different vision from the FSF. Free software, shall always be free, with almsource and ideally all derived works. Open Source wants the code to be spread and for that allows inclusion with commercial software. (i.e. Microsoft was able to take open source TCP/IP stacks from BSD (BSD License) and integr…
You're thinking of copyleft licenses, not Free Software.
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.
If they do anything more than that, then I've not seen it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> They own the trademark of "Open Source" So every time I talk about open source I'm a dirty trademark infringer and IP pirate?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They own the trademark of "Open Source" So every time I talk about open source I'm a dirty trademark infringer and IP pirate?
In their view, yes, if you don't conform to their prescriptivist take on the subject. The fact that they have fooled so many people into thinking they own a trademark on a generic phrase is, however, pretty impressive.
In the US you can trademark and patent H2O if you insist a bit, so it wouldn't surprise me if they actually owned the actual trademark.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In that context it is important to differentiate Free from Open Source software. The OSI is specifically built with a different vision from the FSF. Free software, shall always be free, with almsource and ideally all derived works. Open Source wants the code to be spread and for that allows inclusion with commercial software. (i.e. Microsoft was able to take open source TCP/IP stacks from BSD (BSD License) and integr…
Free Software nd Open Source Software are the same. You're thinking of copyleft licenses, not Free Software.
FSF puts it this way:
> Another group uses the term “open source” to mean something close (but not identical) to “free software.” We prefer the term “free software” because, once you have heard that it refers to freedom rather than price, it calls to mind freedom. The word “open” never refers to freedom.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
The OSI has its definition here: https://opensource.org/osd
And yes, the term "open source" predates OSI, but till OSI didn't have any specific definition and was slightly different for everybody. OSI created a mostly accepted definition whoch is distinct from FSF's Free Software definition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free Software nd Open Source Software are the same. You're thinking of copyleft licenses, not Free Software.
No. "Free Software" is a term created by RMS/FSF. "Open Source" was later "formalized" by OSI to differentiate. FSF puts it this way: > Another group uses the term “open source” to mean something close (but not identical) to “free software.” We prefer the term “free software” because, once you have heard that it refers to freedom rather than price, it calls to mind freedom. The word “open” never refers to freedom. ht…
The movements have differing philosophical and political stances, but Free Software is automatically also Open Source Software, and vice versa.
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
It would have made for a better discussion if you had stated openly that you are into some fringe self-made anti-org software license. That would have made it clear what you actually want to discuss.
> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
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
Is there a license that does address that loophole?