Slashdot Mirror
OSI To Crack Down On "Open Source" Abusers
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."
why should they force companies to stick to a license, isn't this just OSI nearing closer to the same type of control corporation impose on their software
if there is a such a thing as true OSI then why do we need licenses? 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
This is my sig, there are many like it but this is mine
So my license I make up for the hell of it with my terms that still allows anyone to view and audit my code if not approved by OSI means I can't market open source? Even though my code is open? Am I missing something about the word open?
Yes, but interestingly enough, not by OSI. OSI owns Open Source Initiative Approved License mark and the 'OSI certified' mark.
IANAL, but I don't think OSI has a leg to stand on here.
My blog
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
In composing the Open Source Definition, my aim was that there would be NO legal burden upon users at all. A user should be able to put OSI Certified Open Source software on a computer and go, without reading the license. That's one reason the OSD prohibited the then-popular "Educational Use Only" provision. Requiring the user to perform something - like transmit an advertising badge - is similarly unacceptable because it would place a legal burden on the user.
In practice, issues like patents and even Sarbanes-Oxley create a legal load for some users, but that is not under our developer's control. We had a license back then that imposed an attribution-related legal load on distributors: the original Apache license required attribution in some advertising. It was awkward, there was no way to implement it automatically, and it would have presented a scaling problem if hundreds of authors required attribution in - for example - an operating system distribution's advertising. The community eventually convinced Apache to drop the advertising provision.
That old Apache license has obvious parallels to more current "badgeware" proposals, but badgeware isn't a new issue for Open Source. Almost a decade ago, I reviewed the first Zope license for SPI. Zope's original submission required a web badge. I convinced their investor, Hadar Pedhazur, to make that a nice request rather than a requirement. Most people honored the request. The GPL contained an attribution provision, and still does. OSD was written to fit GPL. But the burden of the GPL's requirement was only upon developers, and it was the minimum necessary amount of attribution to communicate the author identification and the fact that the user had rights.
A developer can be especially irked when someone else labels that developers work as his own. But protecting that developer's business and taking the commercial value out of such relabeling does not require attribution. It could be done using any share-and-share-alike (GPL-like) license that closes the ASP loophole. But it's still fair for a developer to want to be attributed. I think the minimal practical goals for attribution are:
1) The developer should be able to find it.
and
2) The developer should be able to show to others.
This does not mean that the developer should require others to blow his advertising horn. Some companies already use attribution that isn't visible unless you are looking for it - it's embedded in HTML comments. In contrast, the draft Affero flavor of GPL 3 closes the ASP loophole by implementing the minimal necessary requirement for a developer to preserve a visible message informing the user of their rights. The visibility is to implement a separate goal of FSF: that users appreciate their rights and learn to demand them. Should OSI approve this new Affero license, or should it ask that FSF - rather than demanding a direct channel to users, search for that information and present the result on its own sites?
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
In hindsight, you are correct. We were wrong to listen to Larry's advice in this regard.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Well, that's a great legal theory, and it might have some weight with the court, but we established the trademark, and we promoted it, and you know what it means through our hard work. Now you're trying to take my work away from me? I don't think so. Open Source, when applied to software, means "software whose license complies with the Open Source Definition" as evinced by our listing of the license on our website.
If you don't like that, take it to a court and see how far you get.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
One always hopes so, but the misunderstand of people here is rather depressing. It's as if your hard work and our hard work in promoting Open Source has vanished. We're like the scaffolding that created the arch. People look at the arch and say "Oh, how beautiful" and forget that somebody had to work hard to create it.
Excepting, of course, that the analogy breaks down because people are trying to disassemble the arch and take it home, only without the scaffolding, there's no way to put it back together again. Break "Open Source" and you'll let the proprietary software vendors call ANYTHING open source.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
The parent post is very manipulative to the point of sowing seeds of confusion. Hang on a minute while I adjust my tin foil hat....
why should they force companies to stick to a license
Because if they don't, it's very easy for an asshat abusing whatever the OSI wants to enforce to tell a Judge, "Your honor, they have never enforced anything, so I'm allowed to abuse it." I'm paraphrasing, but the point is the OSI *must* enforce or the courts will allow asshats to sodomize whatever the OSI is attempting to protect. Tivo's founders are a good example of asshats that have "stolen" code in a novel way. Look up tivoization on the wikipedia if you don't believe me.
isn't this just OSI nearing closer to the same type of control corporation impose on their software
Whipping out the "all authority sucks" and pasting it on the OSI is a special kind of very manipulative doublespeak.
The OSI encourages new ideas and services making them available to all and preserving intellectual freedom. The typical for-profit corporation is steadfastly opposed to those ideals and does everything they can to squelch Freedom.
I respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree.
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
There are lots of folks who appreciate what we have done and understand it a hell of a lot better than you are seeing here. They are in government, and industry, and everywhere. I do more public speaking than you (I'm in Europe for that at the moment) and see a lot more of them face-to-face.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I'm really shocked at all the negative reaction to this announcement here. This is a *great* thing. It's ridiculous for people
to take advantage of the term "Open Source" to market their products, while shipping something that isn't actually Open Source. And yes, I understand that some people quibble over whether or not the OSI definition is *the* definition of Open Source or not... hell, I may have argued that point myself in the past. But pragmatically, the OSID is the closest thing we have to a universal definition of what it means to be open source, and it's a good definition.
Let's hail this move as a good thing, to help prevent confusion in the market. SugarCRM, etc. shouldn't be going around
calling their stuff Open Source when it's not. Let them use a different term like "Source Available" or "Smart Source" or "Elephantine Lipitrude" or something, whatever.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
How about an addendum to the words "Open Source", maybe "OSI Approved Open Source Software" and possibly a seal.
This way companies or individuals that are interested in using open source software can ask the vendor "Is your 'Open Source' software OSI Approved?", If they get a yes and they're using a license that's incompatible with OSI, you can hunt them down and make them "pay" for their deception.
So, instead of promoting the words "Open Source", maybe promote OSI?
*Warning: Weak web programmer analogy coming up*
It'll make you kind of like the W3C, anyone can come up with a DTD and say their markup is valid, but it's not the same thing as saying W3C Valid (x)HTML v.xx.
I'm pretty sure you can get a trademark/copywhatsoever (IANAL) on "OSI Approved OSS", promote that as what "true/standardized" Open Source software is, and then you can have the legal ground to go after deceitful entities.
Just my 2 cents.
If you can't mod them join them.