[HN Gopher] Non-Thoughts on the Open Source Initiative (2020)
___________________________________________________________________
Non-Thoughts on the Open Source Initiative (2020)
Author : pabs3
Score : 46 points
Date : 2023-08-14 14:34 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (yakshav.es)
(TXT) w3m dump (yakshav.es)
| maffulli wrote:
| OSI executive director here. I read this article and all the
| responses to the survey ran by Hashman before I was hired by the
| organization 2 years ago. There is very valuable feedback here
| and I took it seriously. In the 3 years since the original post
| was published, the OSI has changed in many ways although it
| remains a small non-profit with only 2 full time people on staff
| and a handful of part time consultants. I recommend to read our
| 2022 end of year report https://opensource.org/wp-
| content/uploads/2023/04/2022-OSI-A... to get a quick glance of
| what we've done and check out our programs page
| https://opensource.org/programs for what we're doing now.
| riffraff wrote:
| I feel this article is mildly unfair towards the peel community.
|
| The perl user groups, perl mongers etc have been incredibly
| diffused and grassroot movements, including cheap conferences and
| such.
|
| I'm no perl dev, but I think most of what subsequent communities
| did right builds on the camel's path.
| randoramax wrote:
| This is from 2020
| https://web.archive.org/web/20230000000000*/https://yakshav....
| dang wrote:
| Added. Thanks!
| Pannoniae wrote:
| OSI is an industry-advocate organisation. Their definition of
| "Open Source" is purposefully written to enable exploitation and
| SaaS-ificiation of open source software.
|
| Even if the Ethical Source guys and their Hippocratic License
| might not be watertight, it's still a much better effort than
| "you can use it for anything you want". Leeching and entitlement
| is highly prevalent (just watch what happens when someone
| accidentally publishes software with a wrong license and the
| abuse they get for correcting their mistake) and the whole
| original philosophy of open source is being disregarded.
| pessimizer wrote:
| OSI _started_ open source as an industry-advocate organization,
| and "the whole original philosophy of open source" is industry
| advocacy.
|
| The FOSS shorthand has confused people. Now they're rootless,
| thinking that there was a some moral underpinning to open
| source. Free software is the one with the ethical philosophy.
| Open source is about public collaboration to lower costs and
| raise software quality.
| swyx wrote:
| > Their definition of "Open Source" is purposefully written to
| enable exploitation and SaaS-ificiation of open source
| software.
|
| lol? OSI is usually the first one complaining when SaaS
| companies relicense from MIT/Apache type licenses to other
| nonstandard open licenses.
| Pannoniae wrote:
| but the former are the ones which allow amazon etc. to
| exploit and SaaSify software..... see ElasticSearch where
| Elastic was cast to be the bad guy because they wanted to
| stop Amazon using their product with zero contributions
| towards maintenance but making huge money from it.
| mrob wrote:
| Obeying the terms of the license is not "leeching" or
| "entitlement". Permissive licenses are permissive by design. If
| you don't want people including your Open Source code in their
| proprietary software, use a license that prohibits this, such
| as the AGPL. The Open Source Definition allows for both
| permissive and copyleft licenses, and says nothing about which
| is philosophically preferable.
| oaiey wrote:
| Our industry somehow lacks a good understanding of licenses.
| Like you outline, just use a different license. They might
| not attract people to contribute (because everyone has
| motives) but prevent all the aspects of behavior you do not
| want to see.
| version_five wrote:
| I think people have a reasonable understanding, they just
| want to have their cake and eat it too. Something with e.g.
| a noncommercial license (or gpl) is way less likely to gain
| wide adoption so people don't license it that way. Then
| when it does get used they call it leeching.
|
| I think (maybe controversially) it's the same when people
| talk about training AI on web content. People want all the
| upside of their choice of distribution (wider exposure) but
| complain about the perceived downside (somebody other than
| them profiting).
| pessimizer wrote:
| > People want all the upside of their choice of
| distribution (wider exposure) but complain about the
| perceived downside (somebody other than them profiting).
|
| That's because copyright exists. You can't compare people
| not understanding licenses to people ignoring them.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| Right.
|
| When deciding on a license, people are choosing what they
| think defines success for their code instead of success
| for the world or the ecosystem or all the current and
| future users.
|
| They (think they) are optimizing for adoption or quantity
| of users, regardless of type, meaning do whatever it
| takes to appeal to business, right now, on business's
| terms.
|
| If a thing is good and useful, big business will use it
| on YOUR terms if they have to. But you have to have
| thought about this some and arrived at a solid principle
| and reasons for it, and be willing to not care if your
| thing is not adopted, by an Amazon, today.
|
| You have to be willing to think that it's better for all
| the users if it is either adopted on GPL terms, or not
| adopted ... _by Amazon_. That doesn 't mean not adopted,
| it just means maybe someone who's not a dick might use it
| instead, and everyone gets TWO benefits out of that
| single decision. The project itself is more useful long
| term, and the existence of some other services or
| products besides Amazon. Either it makes the likes of
| Amazon better by force, or it allows others who are
| natively better more oxygen.
|
| 90% of the reason people can even enjoy the luxury of the
| powerful useful rich tools to build things today, for
| free as kids with no money and no permissions and no
| special access to their parents work tools etc, is only
| because other people in the past suffered the
| inconvenience of defying business and declaring strict
| ideals. But not just random meaningless idealism with
| arbitrary limitations, a _correct_ idea, with only the
| surgically specific and correct limitations, as fully
| thought out as possible, that stands up to any
| accusation.
| pydry wrote:
| It doesnt help when large abusive, monopolistic companies
| go on a license smear campaign - e.g. like Amazon vs.
| elastic and Google's burning hatred for everything AGPL.
| kergonath wrote:
| The story discusses the OSI being irrelevant but says nothing
| against Open Source, quite the contrary. On the other hand,
| what it does not discuss is anything related to the FSF.
|
| > Even if the Ethical Source guys and their Hippocratic License
| might not be watertight, it's still a much better effort than
| "you can use it for anything you want".
|
| There is nothing wrong with "you can use it for anything you
| want". There are many reasons to avoid copyleft licenses. So
| you need to be more persuasive and provide more insights if you
| want to be taken seriously.
|
| > Leeching and entitlement is highly prevalent (just watch what
| happens when someone accidentally publishes software with a
| wrong license and the abuse they get for correcting their
| mistake)
|
| You seem to have an issue with a specific case; which one is
| it? Otherwise, any licensing change is controversial if you
| listen to the "right" people. Your point is a bit puzzling
| though, as from my experience, the bullies are people
| advocating for the FSF and GPL. They tend to be even worse
| because of the moral implications of the Free Software
| movement, which sees anything non-GPL as a personal offense.
| Open Source proponents merely say that the developer should do
| whatever the hell they want with their code.
|
| > and the whole original philosophy of open source is being
| disregarded.
|
| The philosophy of Open Source is that the source should be
| open. All the whining about leaching and freeloaders does not
| come from Open Source advocates but from the people you seem to
| defend for some reason. What specific bits of the various Open
| Source philosophies is at odds with people re-using the code
| for closed applications?
| pessimizer wrote:
| > from my experience, the bullies are people advocating for
| the FSF and GPL. They tend to be even worse because of the
| moral implications of the Free Software movement, which sees
| anything non-GPL as a personal offense.
|
| Not in these internal "spirit of open source" discussions.
| All the Free Software advocates I've seen only have one
| comment to make: if you wanted a restrictive license, you
| should have chosen one, not open source. The FSF provides
| many licenses that might protect authors from feeling "taken
| advantage of," and you can also write your own, non-FOSS
| license. Open source is meant to be used by anyone for any
| reason.
| version_five wrote:
| OSI and FSF definitions of open source / free software are
| essentially identical. Copyleft is a different thing of
| course that has a more philosophical angle, but it is not the
| only recognized free/libre software. Importantly there is no
| disagreement that open source / free software should have no
| restrictions on use, whether "ethical" or against "leeching".
| tedivm wrote:
| It's really weird to me how "exploitation" and "SaaSification"
| are brought up in defense of companies choosing licenses that
| exploit their communities so their own SaaS can have a monopoly
| for that project.
| pydry wrote:
| It's really weird to me to see people rail against companies
| releasing what is essentially open source and then reserving
| the right to charge for hosting it.
|
| It was even weirder to see hordes of people rally behind
| _Amazon 's_ moral crusade against it.
|
| It's all rather reminiscent of Google's anti AGPL tantrum
| (e.g. like when they banned it from their code hosting
| platform).
| pessimizer wrote:
| And thinking they have a claim on the "spirit of open
| source." They're literally trying to shut down the
| competition so that their customers don't have better
| options, or failing that, demanding a regular tribute payment
| from their competitors if they continue to operate. I can't
| figure out the difference there between the "spirit of open
| source" and the "spirit of Microsoft."
| jrm4 wrote:
| Obligatory "Stallman was right?"
|
| I'm not much familiar with what the OSI is in any specific sense;
| but yes, "Open Source" has always been a nebulous term that fits
| the container of who's using it. I like the great point of e.g.
| JS being the real "on the ground open source" for better and
| (often) worse; it's provided a lot of good real life lessons on
| the limitations of vague ideas and why real licenses with hard
| tooth legal rules are important.
|
| Generally, I think we've seen "why you really do need lawyers." I
| like ideas like Creative Commons and e.g. the Do WTF you want
| license, but they're no substitute for grown-up law.
| [deleted]
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| MIT is a do wtf you want license, and all the people who call
| themselves adults and call gnu children LOVE it. I don't think
| they are adults, it's usually not adults who use the word.
|
| No one cries "unfair!" or "selfish!" more than a proprietary
| coder who can't use some gpl code, and the louder they cry the
| more they themselves advertise how simply correct and necessary
| that license is.
|
| Stallman was and is right.
| pessimizer wrote:
| I've gotten to prefer referring to FSF licenses as
| "restrictive licenses," which was the name that open source
| or even the "public domain software" people would throw at
| them. I'm happy to say that FSF licenses are more like
| "proprietary" licenses than open source licenses. So when a
| proprietary coder complains about not being able to use GPL'd
| code, I just ask them why we can't use all of their
| proprietary code. They have as much right to steal from the
| public as the public has to steal from them. Or maybe a
| little less, due to democracy.
|
| The GPLs restrict software authors from being the _masters_
| of their users, without requiring them to be the servants of
| their users. Since the author is choosing the license, it 's
| a voluntary relinquishment of rights that should never have
| been given by government to merchants. You choose open source
| if instead you want to give away the those rights (the rights
| to obscure functionality and lock people out of their own
| possessions) to whoever wants them. When Amazon picks those
| up, don't cry about it.
| msla wrote:
| The GPL is only restrictive to companies that want to use
| unpaid labor.
|
| I'm not surprised to see their astroturf around here, and
| I'm not surprised that the astroturf probably isn't paid
| for, either.
| iraqmtpizza wrote:
| Linux kernel devs are literally unpaid labor working
| almost exclusively for the benefit of companies and
| governments with enormous datacenters out in the desert
| ghaff wrote:
| The vast majority of kernel devs are paid salaries to do
| this work by their companies.
| iraqmtpizza wrote:
| You know the ones I'm talking about. The true believers.
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| The GPL is the most free license, because it guarantees the
| propagation of freedom. The MIT license does the opposite.
| If I want my code to be hidden, mangled, and exploited to
| make some asshole in a suit rich at the detriment of the
| rest of society, I already have plenty of opportunities for
| that: paid work. All the MIT license is good for is
| devaluing paid software work in the eyes of the ownership
| class. In contrast, the GPL simply codifies the social
| contract that should apply to every social interaction:
| basic respect via repayment in kind. You got something for
| free! Why not likewise pay it forward by taking an action
| that also costs you nothing?
|
| The GPL just asks that you engage in basic human decency.
| The MIT license declares you a mark.
| iraqmtpizza wrote:
| GPL is expressly designed for assholes who want to
| control people. MIT license allows people to control code
| (the horror!).
| ghaff wrote:
| Realize that as long as you're using GPL code in some
| internal application as many many companies do, there's
| no requirement to make anything available publicly if the
| application isn't distributed.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| I think MIT declares you either a mark or a saint.
|
| I use MIT for trivial things like examples, asnswers to
| questions where you have to declare something or the
| answer or example is of no value and then why bother
| writing it.
|
| But nothing substantial. I "selfishly" only want to
| contribute to the guaranteed for all and eternity pool.
|
| So I don't use or recommend MIT.
|
| But I do think that at least some examples of MIT are the
| result of the authors being essentially saints. Giving so
| selflessly that they even give to the devil, making the
| world a better place only through the mechanism that the
| most people end up using the best functioning available
| code. IE it's better that Microsoft sell the use of the
| TCP/IP stack, than have users end up having to use
| something else. It was them being better than I think
| they have to be, and better than I am, but not actually
| misguided and harmful.
|
| Many uses of MIT do strike me as exactly misguided and
| long term more harmful than helpful, but not
| automatically all.
|
| I'm just not a saint myself and don't require anyone else
| to be either, and I think the world would be at least
| just as fine if there never was any MIT code but only
| normal copyrighted and full GPL style.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| GPL only restricts one from being a dick. "Unfair!"
|
| If someone requires other terms, the existence of GPL code
| in no way restricts them from writing or buying other code
| that is compatible with whatever terms they require.
|
| Anyone crying about that is only crying that they are not
| allowed to steal something that is already free.
|
| From an authors perspective, do what you want. Don't use
| GPL if you don't share the single value it enshrines.
|
| It doesn't make you righter or more rational or the GPL
| wrong or anything like that, and the desire to rent out
| access to the use of a secret is the most common and least
| interesting thing in the world, as is the desire to try to
| present that as being any sort of principle about freedom
| instead of the crass food-gathering thing that it is.
| iraqmtpizza wrote:
| proof that GPL bros think they're so much more
| interesting because they work for free so that giant
| corporations can run their server farms one percent
| faster. not like those dull people making software that
| average computer users will actually pay for
| iraqmtpizza wrote:
| go sue more schoolchildren for not publishing their
| modifications to "libre" code
| jongjong wrote:
| Real open source is dead. These days only corporate or
| institutional-backed open source projects are allowed to
| propagate. Most of these projects have an agenda beyond merely
| facilitating collaboration between developers.
| greentext wrote:
| > These days only corporate or institutional-backed open source
| projects are allowed to propagate.
|
| What do you mean? Can you unpack this?
| [deleted]
| oaiey wrote:
| The OSI (as described here) would be in the primary position to
| make suggestion and even legal frameworks for cooperations to pay
| for open source maintainers etc. One of the core problems of open
| source.
|
| Indeed, beyond license listings, they are not addressing the big
| problems we have.
| wmf wrote:
| Any such framework would be incompatible with the OSD. OSI
| isn't going to repudiate thirty years of work. It's time to
| move on.
| tedivm wrote:
| Frameworks do not necessarily mean license changes or
| requirements.
|
| Look at OpenSSL. They went for years with basically no money,
| had horrible security issues, and then got a ton of
| sponsorships because companies realized they relied on it.
|
| The OSI can do a variety of things that help open source
| contributors and maintainers beyond just licenses. Most
| developers aren't good at things like fundraising, as it's
| not their core competency. In an ideal world the OSI would
| build industry connections and use that to funnel money to
| projects that need it, while also helping build knowledge
| that smaller projects can use to market themselves. None of
| that requires turning their back on their open source
| principles. Legal frameworks, as mentioned above, can even be
| as simple as making it easier to get tax breaks when donating
| to open source projects, or having prebuilt legal agreements
| that help small projects work with big companies for funding
| in a streamlined way.
|
| To be honest, this is why the OSI and FSF have been so
| disappointing to me. There's a huge amount of space here for
| advocacy, public policy initiates, and so much more.
| Unfortunately these groups are so insular and stuck in their
| ways, and would rather do things like defend abortion jokes
| when they could be building communities, that I don't have
| much hope. However, there really is a lot that could be done
| without making any changes to the licenses.
| ninjin wrote:
| No it would not. They could very well work towards a way to
| facilitate payments to those that produce code compatible
| with the Open Source Definition. If they want, have the
| capacity, and have a good idea in terms of how to do so is a
| different matter entirely.
| scj wrote:
| The OSI becoming a conduit for money would probably produce
| more criticism than code.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-08-14 23:00 UTC)