"OpenAnything" does not imply an Open Source Initiative (OSI) Approved License
Recently I saw this Github comment that stated:
It is a fair assumption that the name "OpenAnything" means Open Source Software.
This is a massive stretch and not at all a "fair assumption".
The Open Source Initiative uses a copy of the Debian Free Software Guidelines as their requirements for that they consider an approved "free" license.
Many developers uses the terms "free-software" and "open-source software" almost interchangeably. Every popular currently used licenses that the FSF considers "free" the OSI also has recognized as an "OSI Approved Licenses". Thus we frequently use the term "FOSS" to mash together these two ideas.
The Free Software Foundation is based on the their philosophical framework of software freedom:
The Open Source Initiative uses a copy of the Debian Free Software Guidelines as their requirements for that they consider an approved "free" license.
Many developers uses the terms "free-software" and "open-source software" almost interchangeably. Every popular currently used licenses that the FSF considers "free" the OSI also has recognized as an "OSI Approved Licenses". Thus we frequently use the term "FOSS" to mash together these two ideas.
The Free Software Foundation is based on the their philosophical framework of software freedom:
- (0) to run the program
- (1) to study and change the program in source code form
- (2) to redistribute exact copies, and
- (3) to distribute modified versions
You can think of this as "from each according to their ability to code, to each according for their need to code".
At OS$, we reject the premise that 'free to run' should mean Fortune 100 companies worth Billions of dollars, have zero legal obligation to pay independent developers for the independently developed software they use. There is no way to fix this broken relationship within the FSF's and thus the OSI's ideological framework.
Open Source Initiative Approved License
There is extensive prior art on the term "open-source" pre-dating the 1998 establishment of the OSI.
- 1985, Bill Joy on Computer Chronicles:
- As for the future of UNIX, he [Bill Joy] says its Open Source Code, versatility, and ability to work on a variety of machines means it will be popular with scientists and engineers for some time
- 1990, alt.religion.computers usenet post:
- BSD's open source policy meant that user developed software could be ported among platforms, which meant their customers saw a much more cost effective, leading edge capability
- 1993, comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32 usenet post:
- Anyone else into "Source Code for NT"? The tools and stuff I'm writing for NT will be released with source. If there are "proprietary" tricks that MS wants to hide, the only way to subvert their hoarding is to post source that illuminates (and I don't mean disclosing stuff obtained by a non-disclosure agreement). Open Source is best for everyone in the long run.
- 1996, Caldera Press Release:
- CALDERA® ANNOUNCES OPEN SOURCE CODE MODEL FOR DOS
- Caldera believes an open source code model benefits the industry in many ways
Open Source has always been Generic
The term "open source" has always a generic term, thus when the OSI attempted to get both a trademark and a service mark, those efforts failed.
See the OSI's "Announcement of OSI Certified Open Source Mark"
See the OSI's "Announcement of OSI Certified Open Source Mark"
June 15 1999 ZDNet broke the news that OSI’s application for an Open Source trademark had lapsed
We have discovered that there is virtually no chance that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office would register the mark
“open source”; the mark is too descriptive.
So “Open Source” is not and cannot become a trademark.
For this reason, the Open Source Initiative is announcing a new certification mark, “OSI Certified”.
Explicitly use the term Free-Software, avoid the term Open-Source
There's a bit of bait and switch that happens to developers when they stumble across the term "open-source".
The vast majority of software has an OWNER that's invested in the creation and ongoing support of the software.
The FSF's view that focuses exclusively on "user freedom" and completely ignores "developers rights" intentionally subverts the idea of software ownership, even though software that isn't continually maintained is subject to bit rot, and rapidly will become worthless.
Generic use of the term "open-source" doesn't imply licenses that are compatible with the FSF's philosophy.
Often a developer will release the code for something they've worked hard on, and hold back some subset of rights for themselves as the owner, and the FSF acolytes will start posting "but this isn't *real* open-source [because I can't pretend this is a FSF license]". Notice that they never say "this isn't real free-software". Because the entire philosophy of free-software will only ever appeal to a small minority with a very different idea of "fair" than most of us have.
Don't fall into the trap. Just avoid use of the term "Open-Source" all together.
Certainly don't give them any more ground than they've already been able to take.
Explicitly write either "Free Software" for licenses that subvert any concept of reward for the software's developer (owner).
Explicitly write "Fair Code" or "Source Available" for licenses that leave something for the developer.
The vast majority of software has an OWNER that's invested in the creation and ongoing support of the software.
The FSF's view that focuses exclusively on "user freedom" and completely ignores "developers rights" intentionally subverts the idea of software ownership, even though software that isn't continually maintained is subject to bit rot, and rapidly will become worthless.
Generic use of the term "open-source" doesn't imply licenses that are compatible with the FSF's philosophy.
Often a developer will release the code for something they've worked hard on, and hold back some subset of rights for themselves as the owner, and the FSF acolytes will start posting "but this isn't *real* open-source [because I can't pretend this is a FSF license]". Notice that they never say "this isn't real free-software". Because the entire philosophy of free-software will only ever appeal to a small minority with a very different idea of "fair" than most of us have.
Don't fall into the trap. Just avoid use of the term "Open-Source" all together.
Certainly don't give them any more ground than they've already been able to take.
Explicitly write either "Free Software" for licenses that subvert any concept of reward for the software's developer (owner).
Explicitly write "Fair Code" or "Source Available" for licenses that leave something for the developer.