>
> My intent was to clarify the goal of the project; it was not to insult
> anyone. I do apologize to those who misinterpreted my question. I try
> not to have preconceived notions about anything which is why I asked
> for further clarification. The phrase "open source" is somewhat
> ambiguous[1] and occassionally misused which is why I posed the
> question. I have no desire to belittle others on an email list.
As one of the people who has decision power over what projects are
allowed to be hosted on SourceForge.net, I spend a fair amount of time
thinking about what is and isn't "open source." In fact, I'm considered
enough of an expert in this area that last year I was invited to join
the OSI -- http://opensource.org/ -- board. I had to decline the
invitation because I cover the OSI and many of the participants'
companies as a journalist, but I am still close to the group and I have
been on their license-discuss email list almost since the day it was
created.
Here's my take: If a license is approved by OSI, software released under
that license is open source.
Software not issued under an OSI-approved license may be "shared source"
or "peekaboo source" or something. But it is NOT open source, and will
not be allowed on SourceForge.net.
Microsoft has several software projects licensed under OSI-approved
licenses (and a few of these are on SourceForge.net), but most of their
"shared source" software carries licensing restrictions that prevents it
from being truly open source.
All FSF-written Free Software licenses qualify as open source. GPL3 has
not yet been approved by the OSI board, but that could change as early
as this week, assuming the OSI board meets as scheduled. It has been
submitted and applauded, and approval is virtually assured; now it just
needs a vote by the board (a formality).
The worst problem isn't Microsoft's shared source crud, but the "based
on open source" marketing tag we see more frequently every year. A lot
of companies want to present their products as "open source" while
placing restrictions on some or all of their code. I see new licenses
presented to OSI almost monthly that are attempts to skate or teeter on
the edge of the rules -- http://opensource.org/docs/osd -- in order to
give the license holder the benefits of open source while limiting
distribution or modification in some way.
Note that you can have legitimate open source code but not allow use or
redistribution of *your trademarks* without your permission. "Freedom to
fork" is one of the biggest litmus tests for open sourceness, but
"freedom to fork" does not give you freedom gto use (famous example) the
Red Hat name on or in your GNU/Linux distro that is based on or derived
from Red Hat. In essence, if you buy or otherwise obtain a software
product with the Red Hat name on it, you expect that it meets Red Hat's
quality standards and is supported by Red Hat. That is the power of Red
Hat's brand, and you do not have the right to dilute that brand's power
just because you have the right to modify and redistribute open
source-licensed code that was written or distributed by Red Hat.
I do not find the phrase "open source" to be at all ambiguous. Maybe
Microsoft and some others would like you to think it is, but this is as
fraudulent as the imported fish that gets called "Grouper" on a lot of
restaurant menus around here, even though it is NOT Grouper.
Robin 'Roblimo' Miller
Editor in Chief,
SourceForge Inc.
Bradenton, Fleriduh
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked
Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages
posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 17:56:04 EDT