Can we please agree not to call apples "oranges" just because we like how "oranges" sound, and we also happen to like apples?

These are different kinds of fruit, and calling one using the name for the other is simply misleading.

Same with "anti-capitalist licenses" being called "open-source licenses".

They're not. They're different. The difference matters - if it didn't, there would be no reason not to use open-source licenses!

@bookwyrm is not "open source" (doesn't mean bad!):
github.com/bookwyrm-social/boo

@rysiek @bookwyrm >not "open source"
...it is? Unless those quotation marks change the meaning significantly in a way that I'm unaware of.
That project definitely doesn't seem to be *free*, though.

@vyivel @bookwyrm it is not open-source software. Open-source software has a very clear definition: software available on one of the licenses that are OSI-approved.

Bookwyrm's license is *not* OSI-approved.

Again, that doesn't necessarily mean it's "bad". But it does, in fact, mean it's not open-source.

@rysiek @bookwyrm I'd say OSD [1] is just one of the definitions of open source, and OSI isn't the only source of truth. In my book, for software to be qualified as open source, it must, well, have its sources open.

Also, OSD has conditions like "the license must not discriminate against any person or group", which, while they sound good, are absolutely unrelated to source code itself. Frankly, I'm not a fan of such definition.

[1] http://opendefinition.org/od/2.1/en/
Follow

@vyivel @bookwyrm great! But that term has been *defined* this way and *used* this way for decades.

Coming now and saying "I'm going to just start randomly using it to mean something else" is, well, not helpful.

There is a need for a term that refers to "anti-capitalist licenses". But "open-source" is not that term.

If you take the effort to come up with a new definition, bite the bullet and come up with a new term too.

· · Web · 1 · 0 · 2

@vyivel @bookwyrm plus, Bookwyrm's license also has plenty of conditions that are "absolutely unrelated to source code itself":
github.com/bookwyrm-social/boo

All the conditions around "individual person", "organization", "ownership", "educational institution", "law enforcement" in that license have nothing to do with the source code, after all.

@rysiek @bookwyrm My post wasn't related to Bookwyrm at all. They can have whatever they want in their license, I don't mind.

@vyivel @bookwyrm welp, you did reply in a long-ish thread specifically about Bookwyrm, and generally about anti-capitalist licenses being mislabeled as open-source licenses.

So, there's that.

@rysiek @bookwyrm I was merely replying to a phrase "Bookwyrm isn't 'open source'"; guess we just have different views at what words "open" and "source" mean.

I agree that "anti-capitalist" ≠ "open source", though.

@vyivel so let me get this straight:

1. you claim Bookwyrm *is* open source
2. you agree "anti-capitalist licenses" ≠ open source

Are you aware that Bookwyrm is, in fact, licensed under an "anti-capitalist license"?

If so, I am unsure how you can hold 1. and 2. to be true at the same time...

@rysiek
Yes, Bookwyrm is open source (according to my definition of open source).
Yes, an anti-capitalist license isn't necessarily an open source license, and vice versa.
Yes, Bookwyrm is licensed under an anti-capitalist license, while also being open source.
I don't see the problem.
@rysiek A software which legally has its sources open to inspect. Simple as.

@vyivel so, all of the Big Tech "source-available" licenses that let you see the source code but not run or use it are "open-source", according to your definition.

Is that correct?

@vyivel @rysiek I mean, vylvel is correct, "open source" does not imply that you are allowed to _use_ the source, only that it is open

@Mia @vyivel no it doesn't:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-sou

"Open-source software (OSS) is computer software that is released under a license in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software and its source code to anyone and for any purpose."

Other sources of OSS definitions have been quoted in this thread already, if you mistrust Wikipedia.

@vyivel well if that is not the definition of "open-source washing", I don't know what is.

It's clear to me that we will not find common ground, just as it's impossible for me to find common ground with Big Tech and random techbro startups that insist that them making their source code available for inspection (but not use or modification) is somehow "open-source".

Language matters, terms have definitions. If suddenly "apple" can be defined as "orange-color citrus fruit", we have no way to communicate.

@rysiek IMO, the term "permissive free software license" would be more suitable for licenses that allow inspection, modification and usage of the source code.

@vyivel these debates have been going on for decades. The terms that have been eventually agreed-upon, with reasonably clear definitions, are "free software" (if we're talking copyleft licenses), and "open source" (if we're talking non-copyleft permissive licenses).

You are insisting on calling an apple "orange", just because it sounds better to you. That is not a good way to have meaningful conversations. that is, in fact, a way to muddy the waters and make meaningful conversations hard or impossible.

> "free software" (if we're talking copyleft licenses)
no, free software encompasses software licensed under both copyleft and non-copyleft licenses.
narrowing down the meaning of free software to cover only copyleft is a common misconception, but free software is defined by *respect* the four freedoms, not necessarily their *defense* (which is what copyleft does)

nitpicking a bit here, @rysiek, free software and open source software are equivalently defined for the most part by the FSF and the OSI respectively. At least from the FSF side it is entirely correct to describe both permissively licensed and copylefted software as free, as both subcategories comply with the four freedoms. I do not read much materials from the OSI, but I’m pretty sure the OSD does cover copyleft licenses as well.

What you might mean was the permissive crowd usually referring to their software as being open source while copyleft and FSF worshipers like me insist on the term free software. Personally I’d use the word libre or the umbrella term FLOSS if I need to communicate with people outside of my circle though.

To @vyivel, I assume that you are arguing in good faith, but I find bookwyrm hijacking a term with a widely accepted meaning in the FLOSS community to gain validation and trust is a very deceptive act for a selfish gain, albeit perhaps not of capital.

@cnx @vyivel I must make *VERY CLEAR* that @bookwyrm does not seem to be trying to hijack the term "open-source"; they don't seem to be using it anywhere.

A lot of people who promoted Bookwyrm here on fedi did use that term though, hence the thread.

@cnx @rysiek @bookwyrm Now that it has been several hours and I'm not sleep-deprived anymore, I'd agree that "open source" being equal to "source-available" isn't correct, and Bookwyrm isn't open source indeed. Still not a huge fan of OSD, but I guess I can use it. Sorry if my arguments seemed to be made in bad faith: I had no ill intentions.

...maybe software folks aren't that good at naming things in general, not just variables. :blobfox3c:

@vyivel @cnx @bookwyrm oh, we're TERRIBLE at naming things!

No problem, thanks for the lively conversation. Shouting into the void is super boring, it's way more fun when somebody shouts back! :blobcatthinksmart:

@rysiek @cnx @vyivel @bookwyrm They even removed this term from their pages when someone made this point on their github

> term "permissive free software license"
... is redundant. the only thing a license can do is grant permissions, so it is permissive by definition. yes, copyleft licenses are permissive: all they do is grant permissions, even if narrower ones than other lax permissive licenses.

now, software industry has succeeded in getting people to conflate licenses with licensing agreements. licenses can't take rights away, only revoke prohibitions stated in law: they're unilateral grants. agreements, OTOH, are contracts, and they can take rights away, but they require explicit consent to accomplish that.
people trying to write copyright licenses to impose restrictions on actions that are not constrained by copyright, such as software execution, have been successfully confused, and are further inducing others to error by giving them the idea that their so-called licenses accomplish what they set out to do. yet another layer of unethical behavior, or just foolishness?
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon for Tech Folks

This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!