|
|
|
|
|
|
by wolframhempel
1046 days ago
|
|
|
And how does the OSI derive it's legitimacy as the steward for all things open source? As far as I am concerned, it is just one body with its own private viewpoint, not a universal lawmaker for all open source devs. In general, while I appreciate the work of the OSI, I believe that they are too idealistic in their viewpoint, derived from the world of Linux and early OS. In my view, if we want to maintain a healthy and growing open source ecosystem, we must allow the makers of great OSS to be sustainable and monetize their creation. I don't believe that that's an inherent conflict with the spirit of OSS. |
|
|
We give it to them.
OSI isn't an entity that's existed since the beginning and the original definition doesn't come from them.
I agree that it's not a space that doesn't change.
Having said that, change must come from the community. It can't be just a couple corporate entities defining their own license, calling it open source, and going against the established definition.
> In my view, if we want to maintain a healthy and growing open source ecosystem, we must allow the makers of great OSS to be sustainable and monetize their creation. I don't believe that that's an inherent conflict with the spirit of OSS.
I don't mind monetization don't get me wrong.
Should it change? I'm not the authority on it. I'm just saying it's not the current definition.