On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 12:44 PM Tobie Langel <to...@unlockopen.com> wrote:
> > I believe that to many open source practitioners, the meaning of open > source is much broader than the OSD. For example, Ethan Marcotte coined the > term "nominally open source," to talk about a project that had an open > source license, but a closed governance model[1], and many rallied behind > this definition. > > Clearly implied there is a broader set of values that are necessary to > meet the spirit of open source than just following the OSD to the letter. > Nope. What matters is access to the source, not the governance of the project whether cathedral or bazaar. BOTH are and always have been open source. If I develop my own little tool on my own and gift the source to the world under an OSI approved license that's all that matters and I DO meet the spirit of Open Source because that definition is inclusive and not exclusive as you seem to prefer. Governance doesn't matter because you have the right to fork and use whatever governance you prefer on your own fork. > So from that perspective, the notion that some of these values are > antithetical to open source doesn't make any sense. I, of course, > understand the technical and legal concerns here, but most practitioners > have never heard of the OSI or the OSD. > > So I don't think there's a desire to leverage the open source brand value > at all here (of course open source isn't a brand), nor do I believe > most open source practitioners have heard of the term "source available." I > hadn't until fairly recently. > Yes, there is an Open Source brand or your movement wouldn't be trying to co-opt it. I noticed that the ethical source folks have freely availed themselves to the brand by calling it Ethical Open Source and Ethically Licensed Open Source rather then just Ethical Source or Ethically Licensed Source. The Hippocratic License isn't OSD compliant and what is considered "ethical" is completely at the whim of the licensor. > "Open source" is just the term open source practitioners use to describe > what they do, and their conception of what that implies that increasingly > includes elements that fall outside of what the OSD accepts as such. Hence > the tension. > Then why do you need the OSI? There is no need to update the OSD. The branding doesn't matter right?
_______________________________________________ The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
