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!):
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.
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.
@vyivel @bookwyrm plus, Bookwyrm's license also has plenty of conditions that are "absolutely unrelated to source code itself":
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.
@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...
@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 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.
@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.
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.
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!