I wonder if could lead to Apple getting in trouble for claiming that WebKit is "open-source" despite ignoring the requirement that programs (e.g., Safari) that include LGPL libraries permit them to be re-linked (which is something that Apple has implicitly disallowed ever since their platforms required code signing).
Court finds calling stuff open source when it's not is false advertising
41–50 of 160 posts
Re: Court finds calling stuff open source when it's not is false advertising
#42Earlier 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 to explicitly permit use of your intellectual property. Publishing work and not providing that license means you retain all copyright, and if anyone uses your IP, they are breaking the law. you must specifically grant them permission, otherwise they open themselves up to a lawsuit at a later date, because they have no permission to use the code.
I do however strongly disagree that "code without a license is not open source". publicly visible source code is extremely useful for research and education purposes, and I have in fact published code that is "free to view, research and experiment with" but contains no license and specifically states that you are not allowed to use the code. I still consider that code open source, but it is of course not "free" (as in speech) software. Please do not conflate the two.
Re: Court finds calling stuff open source when it's not is false advertising
#43I 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 haven't read the trial court ruling, but the appeals court ruling doesn't support OSI controlling the term. Rather, since both the plaintiff and the defendant agreed that AGPL + Common Cause was not a free or open source license, the court simply accepted that, and didn't have to weigh in on the matter themselves.
Edit: After reading the applicable sections of the trial court ruling, it is no different - the court simply accepted the plantiff and defendant's shared use of the term. It didn't reference OCI or FSF or any other authority.
Re: Court finds calling stuff open source when it's not is false advertising
#44so 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?
that was my point. "open source" is a loaded term.
Re: Court finds calling stuff open source when it's not is false advertising
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 univer…
So they popularized (or maybe co-opted?) the term then. They didn't coin it. How is this nitpicking? Saying they coined the term is clearly false.
Re: Court finds calling stuff open source when it's not is false advertising
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's unlicensed (in the quote) and source is available, then what restrictions are there?
you have to explicitly permit use of your intellectual property. Publishing work and not providing that license means you retain all copyright, and if anyone uses your IP, they are breaking the law. you must specifically grant them permission, otherwise they open themselves up to a lawsuit at a later date, because they have no permission to use the code. I do however strongly disagree that "code without a license is…
You have to assert that you have copyright on the work. Which seems to be missing from that quote.
Re: Court finds calling stuff open source when it's not is false advertising
#47Re: Court finds calling stuff open source when it's not is false advertising
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 univer…
So they popularized (or maybe co-opted?) the term then. They didn't coin it. How is this nitpicking? Saying they coined the term is clearly false.
Because as far as they know they did. It came up in meetings they had saying "what should we call this?" per your own link!
Re: Court finds calling stuff open source when it's not is false advertising
#49A bunch of people here are conflating the concepts of "free software" and "open source". these are not the same. "Free" (as in speech, or beer) software is governed by the license it is published under. Open source simply refers to the fact that the source code is publicly available.
Open source is a prerequisite for truly free (as in speech) software, but the opposite is not.
Re: Court finds calling stuff open source when it's not is false advertising
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
So they popularized (or maybe co-opted?) the term then. They didn't coin it. How is this nitpicking? Saying they coined the term is clearly false.
Because as far as they know they did. It came up in meetings they had saying "what should we call this?" per your own link! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_discovery
I'm not really sure what your point is anymore. If you agree that they were not the first ones to use the term, then we are on the same page. If you agree that open source was used as a term before the OSI came along and decided the define the term in a specific way, then we are in agreement.