Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
Aslett: Opening up the Open Source Initiative
The 451 Group's Matthew Aslett has posted a
writeup of the plans to reform the Open Source Initiative as discussed
at the Open Source Business Conference. "Arguably, a fate equal to
the subversion of the OSI would be irrelevance. Rather than assuming that
organisations will seek to over-run the OSI, I believe more attention
should be being placed on ensuring that organisations will seek to
join. The OSI remains well-respected, but I believe that for many of the
different constituencies in the open source community it is not entirely
clear what it is that the OSI contributes beyond its traditional role of
protecting the Open Source Definition and approving associated
licenses."
(Log in to post comments)
Aslett: Opening up the Open Source Initiative Posted May 24, 2011 4:16 UTC (Tue) by Hausvib6 (guest, #70606) [Link]
What OSI have done is for greater good but they don't even invent or own the "open source" phrase, idea, or even the definition, noone can own or control what open source is. Anyone with sufficient resource can start something like Open Source Association, Open Source Alliance, or whatever word fits with the current market to bolster their own definition of open source. No need to subvert OSI.
Since the definition is somewhat subjective, at least to me, I think FSF is more dependable when they say something is free/open or not.
Aslett: Opening up the Open Source Initiative Posted May 24, 2011 6:07 UTC (Tue) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943) [Link] "Hausvib6" (whoever that is) wrote:Since the definition is somewhat subjective, at least to me... You're entitled to be wrong. It's the Internet way, after all. No, sorry, OSI did invent the phrase in the relevant context, in all ways that matter: I remember, on a why-the-hell-not principle, doing fairly extensive research effort on this matter and debunked a number of specific claims of prior provenance, and finally found exactly one guy on Usenet who'd used the term exactly once in arguably a similar way -- but had done absolutely nothing with it. (You'll find that discussion thread in the archives of the license-discuss mailing list.) I believe I recommended that the OSI Chair buy him a beer if he ever showed up. Moreover, it's the OSI and the OSD, and only they, that have consistently made it a meaningful concept and phrase within the software context, and have earned respect that the open source community have given them. Pretend otherwise all you want. (I'm also boggling at the notion of the OSD being 'subjective' and Richard's Four Freedoms essay, lately styled the "Free Software Definition", much though I might admire it, not being a half dozen orders of magnitude more so.) Rick Moen
Aslett: Opening up the Open Source Initiative Posted May 24, 2011 11:21 UTC (Tue) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link] (I'm also boggling at the notion of the OSD being 'subjective' and Richard's Four Freedoms essay, lately styled the "Free Software Definition", much though I might admire it, not being a half dozen orders of magnitude more so.) I'm not sure about the Open Source Definition being subjective, but it strikes me that the problem with trying to define an open source movement has always been the obsession with "pragmatism", or at least that's the word people use in various communities where people get upset if anything copyleft-related is mentioned. With the Free Software Definition, you know where everything is coming from - the goal is for software to be freely available and that is sufficient in itself - whereas the open source movement (or factions thereof) have tried to avoid value judgements and have tried to make the case on the basis of popular methodologies used in Free Software projects and various measures such as code quality or security: it's almost like the code being open is not considered a worthy enough merit in its own right and that we have to make excuses for it. The problem with such "performance metrics" is, of course, that a bunch of people can adopt a competing methodology, demonstrate higher quality or improved security and thus undermine the case for something which is almost completely orthogonal to these things. Instead, organisations like the Open Source Initiative should be emphasising things like sustainability - that open participation in the development of a project extends guarantees that would not otherwise exist - although one might argue that this would bring their advocacy fairly close to that of the FSF. And that brings us full circle to the question of the purpose and relevance of the Open Source Initiative.
Aslett: Opening up the Open Source Initiative Posted May 25, 2011 14:58 UTC (Wed) by webmink (guest, #47180) [Link]
That's the question OSI is seeking to answer. My initial instinct three years ago was that OSI was no longer relevant and should be wound up. But I came to realise that would probably not be good for the cause of software freedom. Given OSI exists, is globally recognised and that the OSD is referenced globally by many governments as part of legislation and by many organisations as part of procurement guidelines, it would be wrong to do so as well as opening up the potential for greater abuse of the abandoned OSD.
I thus joined the OSI Board with the view that it is what it is, and the real question is not one of history but of the future. What positive things could software freedom advocates do with this organisation? My personal vision is to complement the advocacy work of FSF by turning OSI into a gathering point for the huge diversity of organisations and people whose work depends on software freedom. Once they've gathered, OSI's activities will then be driven by their energy and not by the choices of a small group of individuals. I believe that's a positive direction and I hope others here will join in the process as it grows.
Aslett: Opening up the Open Source Initiative Posted May 25, 2011 20:27 UTC (Wed) by hingo (guest, #14792) [Link] If you want to criticize "the open source movement", then by all means, you're not the first one to say what you say. (And while I see it differently, what you say is not totally unfounded.) But speaking about the OSI and the Open Source Definition, there's no pragmatism involved. It is a document that is concerned with how the software is licensed, period. The OSI has done an excellent job over 13 years in protecting that definition and applying it to actual licenses, and getting corporate lawyers to understand how and why it applies.Note that in the OSD, there is nothing mentioned about open source software being of better quality, or developed with certain methodology. You could release crappy software developed behind closed doors, and if properly licensed, this is open source software. It is not subjective, and that has been a strength of it. Of course, the OSD was first written as Debian Free Software Guidelines, so it shouldn't be a surprise that there is no divide here whether you want to associate yourself as free software activist or open source activist. At the core, I always saw these as the same movement. (Perhaps in a good cop, bad cop kind of way, but still the same...)
Aslett: Opening up the Open Source Initiative Posted May 25, 2011 20:34 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
Yes the OSD was derived from DFSG however the interpretation of licenses and validity of them is important to consider. I think OSI history on this is atleast partially spotty. C.f. Old Aristic License and ASPL. FSF has a much better track record in this matter. OSI is well aware of these problems and so far seem to have taken no actions in this matter.
Aslett: Opening up the Open Source Initiative Posted May 24, 2011 21:31 UTC (Tue) by Hausvib6 (guest, #70606) [Link]
My mistake, I should have done more research in that.
|
|||||||||||||