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."

14 of 379 comments (clear)

  1. Open Source != Free Software by sfarmstrong · · Score: 5, Informative

    Open source is about exposing your code to the general public. This enables third-party developers to more easily analyze and make use of your software. It enhances the academic community's ability to experiment with, research, and just generally make "fair use" of software.

    Free software is about exposing the intellectual property contained within the code - the copyrights and patents attached to the code. It enhances the public's access to software, and hence their ability to take full advantage of their computers. More importantly, it prevents waste. For example, can you imagine the extra cost to the economy if every developer had to implement public key cryptography from the ground up?

    Free software implies open source; open source does not imply free software. Please, let's not confuse the two. It would be wonderful (and arguably sensible) if Microsoft made its code open source. It would be absurd for Microsoft to release its copyright of said code.

    1. Re:Open Source != Free Software by strider44 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The restrictions for open source include Free Redistribution and allowing derived works. You seem to be implying that Shared Source is an open source license, which is wrong. You should really read the Open Source Definition if that is what you're implying.

  2. Re:OSI forcing licenses? by essence · · Score: 4, Informative

    open source = you can see the source I don't think the definition should have to apply any further than that if companies dont want to 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.

  3. Re:OSI forcing licenses? by mdwh2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    open source = you can see the source

    Except that isn't alone the definition - as I understand it, this was a term introduced by the OSI, and not one which preexisted.

    Whether they have a legal right to enforce it depends on trademark law, but I don't think it's right for companies to use false or misleading advertising, by trying to pretend a term applies to their software, when it doesn't.

  4. Re:Open Source DOES equal Free Software by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Informative
    When I wrote the Open Source definition, Richard Stallman approved of it (in a private email) as "A good definition of Free Software". He has not written his own definition at that time. Free Software and Open Source are both names for the same thing - software licensed a particular way, and the only way they differ is that they talk about it in a different way - Open Source is a campaign directed toward business people, Free Software is not. Even RMS agrees with me on this now (we were on stage in Italy two weeks ago talking about this) although he will of course always want to be identified as a Free Software person because he feels it's most important to talk about Freedom. Once upon a time Eric Raymond did try to differentiate Free Software from Open Source, and he tried to deprecate RMS in general. That was a mistake and does not matter any longer.

    Bruce

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  5. Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Read the current registration for Open Source. It has no relation to software, so I do not think an existing registration in this case should have any bearing. Trademarks are such a convoluted device that the USPTO requires all Trademark examiners to be lawyers.

  6. Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Informative

    You are correct. The current registration would not interfere with a registration for a certification mark for software licensing.

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  7. Re:Badgeware is the problem by TheNicestGuy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Thank you, Bruce. Like many here, I was trying to figure out what Tiemann found so objectionable about SugarCRM's license. Being based on the Mozilla Public License, it looks very much like a lot of open-source licenses out there. It took a while to spot the "badgeware" clause hiding down at the very bottom:

    However, in addition to the other notice obligations, all copies of the Covered Code in Executable and Source Code form distributed must, as a form of attribution of the original author, include on each user interface screen (i) the "Powered by SugarCRM" logo and (ii) the copyright notice in the same form as the latest version of the Covered Code distributed by SugarCRM, Inc. at the time of distribution of such copy. In addition, the "Powered by SugarCRM" logo must be visible to all users and be located at the very bottom center of each user interface screen. Notwithstanding the above, the dimensions of the "Powered By SugarCRM" logo must be at least 106 x 23 pixels. When users click on the "Powered by SugarCRM" logo it must direct them back to http://www.sugarforge.org./ In addition, the copyright notice must remain visible to all users at all times at the bottom of the user interface screen. When users click on the copyright notice, it must direct them back to http://www.sugarcrm.com/

    And suddenly that's no longer open source, because "open" doesn't just mean you can see it. It means you can use it and modify it for any purpose you want, including making new software for distribution, without jumping through hoops. As a developer, that's always been my understanding. This is "available, but branding-encumbered" source.

  8. Re:Open Source License Monopoly... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2, Informative

    I gave out software as public domain calling it "open source," is that OSI blessed? Should I be shamed for not using a license?
    There is certainly no shame in giving out public domain software. And I think that OSI acknowledges that public domain software with available source is qualified to be called OSI Certified Open Source, so this is moot anyway. However, making it stick that your software is actually public domain means using the right legal language, and a whole lot of people get it wrong. U.S. copyright law actually does not include a definition of how someone can dedicate their software to the public domain or even whether they can do it. And of course that complicates things if you should ever get to court over something. So, BSD licensing is usually legally more solid than a dedication to the public domain.

    I make my statement by just not using software that annoys me.
    This is voting with your wallet, but without telling anyone else how you feel or helping to form a community (by being in one), you reduce your chances that anyone will listen to you and change to something that does not annoy you. Politics requires communication to work. Otherwise, you're sort of like a hermit who separates himself from society for good and valid reasons but does nothing to help reform society.

    Thanks

    Bruce

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  9. Re:More than just seeing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    "Official" definition? I think that's the problem people are having with this: you (and your organization) aren't the "official" definers of phrases.

  10. Re:More than just seeing by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Informative
    I contend that the only difference between Open Source and Free Software is how we promote them. Open Source is promoted to business, Free Software talks about Freedom first and is more a priori. RMS is almost agreed with this as of two weeks ago, he says that the licensing is 99% the same and he acknowledges that the campaign to differentiate Free Software from Open Source is ended and doesn't matter.

    Bruce

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  11. Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark? by DavidSev · · Score: 1, Informative

    OSI Certified:
    http://opensource.berlios.de/docs/certification_ma rk.php

  12. Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The GPL doesn't restrict your use of the code -- just redistribution of it.

  13. Newest example: NASA's CLARAty Open Source License by janwedekind · · Score: 2, Informative
    http://claraty.jpl.nasa.gov/man/software/license/o pen_src/index.php An the license straight away starts contradicting its title starting with the first condition:

    1) The Software shall not be used for commercial production or sale of any commercial product or derivative incorporating the Software. Should the user desire to use the Software for any such commercial purpose, the user must contact the Office of Technology Transfer at Caltech to obtain permissions and pay the appropriate royalty; and ...
    Maybe in many cases it is not a malicious attempt to fool users into selecting their software. Often it is a lack of understanding (or a different understanding) what the term "open source" actually means. If someone wrongly claims that his/her software is licensed with an OSI approved license, this is a different story however. I think it is much safer to use terms like GNU Public License or OSI approved license to avoid misunderstandings and to hamper any attempts of twisting the meaning of what you are saying. This whole thing reminds me a bit of mimicry .