Software Freedom @conservancy: "Open Source AI Definition Erodes the Meaning of 'Open Source'"
-
Software Freedom @conservancy: "Open Source AI Definition Erodes the Meaning of 'Open Source'"
"With this announcement, we have reached the moment that software freedom advocates have feared for decades: the definition of “open source” — with which OSI was entrusted — now differs in significant ways from the views of most software freedom advocates."
Open Source AI Definition Erodes the Meaning of “Open Source”
The Software Freedom Conservancy provides a non-profit home and services to Free, Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) projects.
Software Freedom Conservancy (sfconservancy.org)
-
Rachel Rawlingsreplied to Michael Downey 🚩 last edited by
@downey @conservancy I was at the first OSCon when Tim O'Reilly explained--not in these exact words--that the term "Open Source" was invented to be more business-friendly than "Free/Libre Software" so it doesn't surprise me to see it watered down further.
-
Michael Downey 🚩replied to Rachel Rawlings last edited by
@LinuxAndYarn I agree it's not particularly surprising, but it is still disappointing. I resigned as "individual (non-voting) member #3" some years ago as it had become evident to me the corporate capture prevailing over the stated values and mission.
-
Esther Payne :bisexual_flag:replied to Michael Downey 🚩 last edited by
" The concept was explored and discussed publicly (under the moniker “Free Software”) for decades before it was officially “defined”. The OSI announced itself as the “marketing department for Free Software” "
Much as it saddens me, I think the first step in this road was that initial announcement calling itself the marketing department for Free Software.
I always considered the OSI as custodians of the OSI definition. How naive of me.
-
Esther Payne :bisexual_flag:replied to Esther Payne :bisexual_flag: last edited by
@downey @conservancy So we should not really be surprised that @osi are pushing this non open definition.
I refuse the argument that means the existing applications/platforms couldn't be certified as open.
If any part of them aren't available for us to study, share, modify, redistribute or the other parts of the definition, it should not be considered open. This is where we should draw the line. I'm honestly disappointed in the OSI. They are eroding the definition.
The Open Source Definition
Introduction Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open source software must comply with the following criteria: 1. Free Redistribution The license shall…
Open Source Initiative (opensource.org)
-
Michael Downey 🚩replied to Esther Payne :bisexual_flag: last edited by
@onepict The only thing that makes OSI de facto stewards of anything is the community legitimacy they used to have.
-
Esther Payne :bisexual_flag:replied to Michael Downey 🚩 last edited by
@downey yeah well that legacy is trashed now.
-
Michael Downey 🚩replied to Esther Payne :bisexual_flag: last edited by
@onepict Somewhere (LWN?) I saw that there's a group forming of those willing to build something better than OSI:
Community Commitment to Open Source Definition
A statement from the community in support of the Open Source Definition (OSD) version 1.9
Community Commitment to Open Source Definition (opensourcedeclaration.org)
-
Esther Payne :bisexual_flag:replied to Michael Downey 🚩 last edited by
@downey yeah, I saw that.