Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

OSI To Crack Down On "Open Source" Abusers

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the opening-a-can-of-whup-ass dept.

munchola sends us word that the Open Source Initiative is getting tough on any vendors who claim to be open source despite not actually using a license approved by the OSI. In his blog post, OSI president Michael Tiemann writes: "Enough is enough. Open Source has grown up. Now it is time for us to stand up. I believe that when we do, the vendors who ignore our norms will suddenly recognize that they really do need to make a choice: to label their software correctly and honestly, or to license it with an OSI-approved license that matches their open source label."

4 of 379 comments (clear)

  1. Re:OSI forcing licenses? by WED+Fan · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    The word 'open' implies more than just being able to view the source. It implies what you should be able to do with it.
    We need some standards. Letting companies attach any meaning they please to a common term makes the term useless.

    We need to restrict people to OUR version of Freedom (Note: RMS has requested that we call it GNUFreedom). Only by removing all other choices can we make others free from the needing to make a choice. Only by making sure they make the GNURight choice can anyone be truly GNUFree. If a person does not see that this is truly GNUFreedom, then we must ridicule, berate, and bring tort until the individual accepts the GNUTruth and becomes truly GNUFree.

    Sir, your GNUSarcasm doesn't help.

    Oh, sorry, I GNUAppoligize.

    Good, now the GNUCatechism: It is by surrendering all choice that I become truly free from freedom. It is truly freedom to be freed of making choices. GNUFreedom is our God and RMS is its GNUProphet. Blessed be GNUFreedom, blessed be the GNUProphet, GNUHoliness on his GNUName.

    --
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
  2. Re:Open Source DOES equal Free Software by Shambly · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I'm sorry but are you seriously this conceited. If you believe you own the right for anyone to call their software open source you are sadly mistaken. You didn't write THE open source definition you wrote YOUR open source definition. People do not have to agree with you. The use of open and free to describe the kind of software people want to write was a poorly chosen one to begin with. The terms are very confusing when people hear free they usually think free as in beer. Which is why it was changed to open source. The problem with your arguments is that the freedoms associated with open source are defined by their license so that some open source projects are more open sourced then others. BSD licenses are much different then GPL licenses. I don't see why any organisation needs to take control of what is allowed to call itself open source. Like any software you have to read the license and see if you agree with the terms their. If you don't like the terms don't buy the software. Don't use semantics to force an unescessary check to buy from your foundation.

  3. Re:Hmmm by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Pseudonyms think pseudothings.

    --
    Don't piss off The Angry Economist
  4. Re:More than just seeing by suv4x4 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    So a lot of us, myself included, object to this redefinition of the term. It's not like Open didn't mean anything to the computing community before.

    Maybe you didn't get it the first time: he originated the "Open Source" phrase. The phrase wasn't in common use today.

    It's hard to accept that, since you were probably still peeing your pants at the time OSI came into existence, but it's the fact of life. That they lost control of the phrase and it became generalized later on, is a completely different issue.