[lowkey]

“Oh yea, anything FUTO is not open source. It’s merely source available”

I disagree and so does FUTO but in the interest of making nice with the community, they now call their software license “source first.”

Personally, I think of their license as open-source for humans, but not the for-profit legal fictions we call corporations. I am ok with that.

Why does the OSI get to dictate the one true definition of open source?

OSI didn’t invent the term. It was invented by Christine Peterson in 1998 and notably she is not even a member of OSI. They just co-opted the term from her.

OSI was founded by still secret charter members and large corporate sponsors such as Google, Apple and Microsoft who make Billions off the back of free open source software while giving back almost nothing.

FUTO was founded as an alternative to the tech oligopolies and their software is licensed as open-source except that they require separate licensing for commercial use, specifically to protect against exploitation by tech giants.

[Brian_K_White]

They don't dictate.

It's an interesting reaction to suggest that.

They developed a definition as a service and gave it to everyone to use just like one does with software or art.

Other people have decided that they agree that this definition correctly describes a bag of concepts and principles they need some sungle convenient collective term for.

They "dictate" the definition only in the same way you "dictate" the contents of anything you wrote, or the way you "dictate" what your own name is.

If I say "Foo is not an OSI approved license." I am the one "dictating" something.

I am using a definition that was written down so that it's available for me to use as a reference when I want to say the entire bag of principles without having to spell them all out each time in a tweet or something.

All the OSI did is write down some ideals and principles the same as a wikipedia page.

They have no power to "dictate" that you exhibit those values. If you don't hold those principles, then don't.

What, you want to be able to call yourself a saint and enjoy the admiration due to saints, without having to actually live up to the annoying things that actually make a saint worthy of that admiration? Ok.

[quilnux]

In my opinion, the term "open source" means "the source [code] is open for people to see". You might be able to stretch that to include "and modify" but that is stretching it.

That is all "open source" really means. It's open for people to see/view. Beyond that, is where a license comes in to restrict or give freedom beyond the term of "open source". That is what OSI does. Adds additional requirements within a license. It cannot change the definition of the term "open source" however.

[woobilicious]

Open comes with the ability to participate, an open door is to let something physical through, not like a transparent window that lets one see, an open market, open auction, or open sports league explicitly implies more than just viewing the activity.

For many of us, we've never used "open" to mean viewing.

Right now I wouldn't trust the license to let me message my boss or buy something from a store on my personal phone without violation, commercial activity is an extremely broad term.

[lowkey]

Agree with your statement.

It is accurate for me to say that the FUTO license is open-source according to the original definition of open-source as coined by the author of the term, which focused on the freedom to view, modify, and distribute the software's source code, but made no mention of the ability to commercialize without compensation.

If you say “FUTO is not an OSI approved open-source license since it does not conform to their Open Source Definition” - you are also 100% correct.

When one implies that the FUTO license is not open source, without further clarification, such as adding “according to OSI” then the accuracy of the statement is less clear.

[marcinzm]

The author of the term according to their own account merely coined a new term for the existing concepts covered by free software. Those concepts as of 1998 were:

- The freedom to study how the program works and adapt it to your needs.

- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can share with your neighbor.

- The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits.

https://web.archive.org/web/19980126185518/http://www.gnu.or...

Those are absolutes that apply to everyone. Period. If you can't release improvements because you are a commercial entity then that means the third freedom is restricted. That means it's not free software.

The FSF also covered the ability to charge for distributing copies as long as those freedoms were not lost in the process:

https://web.archive.org/web/19980126190125/http://www.gnu.or...

These are absolutely not kept by a license such as FUTO that restricts these freedoms to certain groups and certain types of activities.

[j16sdiz]

> ... so you can share with your neighbor.

I understand the word "neighbor" and "community" in the narrow, personal relationship, sense.

> The FSF also covered ...

I think FSF's GFDL is general non-free, and all copy left license are discriminative for ideology

[j16sdiz]

I understand the word "neighbor" and "community" in the narrow, personal relationship, sense.

[xigoi]

> If you can't release improvements because you are a commercial entity then that means the third freedom is restricted.

You say that as if megacorporations improved open-source software instead of just using it to develop their shitty proprietary software.

[quilnux]

I love how people have this unqualified belief that the OSI somehow owns the rights to define the term "open source". I guess these people don't know that OSI doesn't own any rights to the term "open source" AND when OSI tried to trademark the term, they were rejected. So "open source" doesn't have to mean what OSI says it does. OSI has their own definition of what "open source" means (which I disagree with them on). FUTO and others are well within their right to define "open source" the way they want.

If OSI had the right to define it, then they would be suing FUTO right now. They aren't because they know they can't enforce any definition of "open source".

[teddyh]

> according to the original definition of open-source as coined by the author of the term, which focused on the freedom to view, modify, and distribute the software's source code, but made no mention of the ability to commercialize without compensation

Really, now? Who was that? Where can we read this supposed original definition?

[thesuperbigfrog]

>> Who was that? Where can we read this supposed original definition?

Christine Peterson published an account that states that 'open source' was based on helping people to better understand 'free software':

'The introduction of the term "open source software" was a deliberate effort to make this field of endeavor more understandable to newcomers and to business, which was viewed as necessary to its spread to a broader community of users. The problem with the main earlier label, "free software," was not its political connotations, but that—to newcomers—its seeming focus on price is distracting. A term was needed that focuses on the key issue of source code and that does not immediately confuse those new to the concept. The first term that came along at the right time and fulfilled these requirements was rapidly adopted: open source.'

Source: https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source...

[teddyh]

That does not sound like they wanted to change the definition of “free software”, only rename it. And “free software”, as (originally, and still) defined by the FSF, has always required permitting commercial use.

[kragen]

you are lying. the osi (including chris peterson) are pro-capitalism and always gave been. 'the ability to commercialize without compensation' is something they repeatedly emphasized from the moment they invented the phrase

[lowkey]

Really? You do know that Christine Peterson isn’t even a member of the OSI, right?

[kragen]

how would you know if she was or not? you obviously don't know her, and osi doesn't publish a list of its individual members

but if she did stop contributing her $50 a year at some point in the last 26 years, how is that relevant? she founded it, in the sense that she was at the meeting which founded it. the osi was specifically the initiative for which she proposed the name

[lowkey]

According to the following source she was not a founding member and she has never been a formal member, though she did invent the term open source [1]

"Peterson was not a founding member of the OSI. The OSI was founded by Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond, who were instrumental in promoting the term "open source" after Peterson introduced it"

"Christine Peterson is not currently a member of the Open Source Initiative (OSI), nor has she ever been a formal member of the organization. However, she played a significant role in the open-source movement by coining the term "open source software" in 1998."

[1] https://www.perplexity.ai/search/is-christine-peterson-a-mem...

[Brian_K_White]

That is indeed part of a good actually free open source license. And that does not have to mean the freedom to steal or the freedom to deny others freedom either, IE, it doesn't have to mean MIT which does allow the freedom to deny the next guy that which you got for free yourself. Although MIT is certainly within the set of true open source licenses.

Here is (one example reason) why it's important not to try to insert strings about commercial usage into an otherwise open source license:

I'm joe ordinary user who, today, has no plans to use something in any commercial way.

I will still avoid any software or other asset like art, hardware design files etc, that doesn't have a real gpl or mit or cc-by-sa license, because,

1 - I have no idea if I may some day discover I do want to somehow involve it in some commercial process, even if not today. I have no idea what I'll want to do tomorrow. I only know that my core principles aren't likely to change. I'm not likely to want to start stealing tomorrow. But I could start wanting to do something commecially tomorrow that I'm not doing commercially today.

I don't want to invest years of effort in something that I might have to throw out and start over one day, or simply be unable to jump on some opportunity, because I thoughtlessly went and got all invested in something that had strings that I didn't think would ever apply to me.

A lot of things require some investment in effort to learn and to use and then to use effectively, and eventually advanced usage etc. I'm going to avoid becoming an expert in something and writing all kinds of integrations and scripts and solving weird problems and contributing fixes and writing up detailed how-tos etc all for something that I might have to throw it all out one day if the unknown currents of future life winds up meaning I do want to employ some skill commercially after all.

So I just tend to avoid things where that could ever possibly be a problem. As much as practically possible anyway. "tend to avoid" means just that. But that's a lot actually.

2 - I may not even necessarily know if I AM using something in a way that counts as commercial, or might technically violate some other terms.

There are an infinite number of hazy ill-defined scenarios where it's unclear if something would count as violating one or more terms in about commercial activity. Some people are fine with just not worrying about it and taking their chances with "common sense". But it's hardly INvalid to actually care about whether you might be tecnically violating a license. What if I'm just making youtube videos for free without even trying to get sponsors, maybe I use the software in some way in the video, but youtube still applies ads and pays me $1.30 because I didn't turn off monetization on a new account? What if I'm just writing up a readme as part of a fully free wikipedia page or a github, or just a post on facebook, and someone comes along and says they'd like to include that in a book or a paid video class? What if I use something not to sell it or to sell it's output, but it lands me a job because someone saw the project, or I use something just as part of my workflow while running some ebay shop or something, or I use something to process my friends voice acting recordings, which they get paid for, or I do something for a community theater where I don't get paid anything, but the theater does sell tickets to pay for the building and electricity etc, it's a non-profit but it's clearly a commercial activity. Maybe me getting to put my name in the playbill , which is advertizing, which has commercial value, counts... There are an infinite number of fuzzy unclear scenarios where some activity might technically count as commercial activity. Most of those examples I just thought up off the cuff probably don't count, but I can only say probably. I don't really know. And I have ZERO interest in gambling on it. I just avoid anything where there is any uncertainty.

I KNOW what I can and can't do with anything that says GPL on it, and I KNOW that none of the things I can't do will EVER surprise me in the bad way one day. I don't have to worry about it, since, even if I use something as part of a commercial process, I don't have any problem with providing access to the sources to any gpl software or gpl-derived software. And I also don't have any problem just living without something if I am working on something proprietary where the owner does not want it to become open. And I never have to worry about a serial number, never have to worry about an audit from MS etc.

Similarly, I don't want to waste my time writing or hacking on anything that isn't as open ended and unencumbered as possible (I don't consider gpl limits as "encumbered"), such that anyone else in the world can't do whatever I did.

I don't want to be a member of an elite club. I don't want to spend the time and effort to figure something out and then maybe add my own work to it, if only some people can benefit from it and not others. I draw circuits in Kicad instead of Eagle not just because Kicad is free for me, but because it's free for a 12 year old in Uganda and they absolutely can use not only my work because I said they can use my work, but also because I didn't do that work with any software they might not be able to use, either because of cost or because of some license not allowing it because, maybe aside from just using my design to make themselves a widget, they want to make widgets and sell them to the other kids.

If any part of the system has some commercial strings, they end up blocking way more than they seem to at first glance.

Say I'm that 12 year old. I find this example that is almost the same as what I want to do, and it would be super useful to learn from this thing and use it as my starting template to make a bike alarm, and the author even says the design files are free to use, no strings, but the design is done in some merely free-as-in-beer software that I can't use legally, or maybe it only runs on Apple. So I can't actually make use of the design because I can't use the software needed to work on the design, because the douchebag who made it made in some software that not everyone can use.

So I do everything in Kicad. There are people who don't like Kicad, but there is no one who does not have free access to it, including both meanings of free. Same goes for the file formats the content is saved in now that I think of it. Aside from the software, the format of the output files are all fully published specs, which is very much not the case for most everything else.

This STUPID FUTO thing is a perfect example of a weird thing that is best just avoided like the plague.

Not because it's a problem that it prevents you from stealing, because it's a problem that you don't really know what you might do one day that might possibly violate it. You can't violate it if you just don't use it at all.

And just to re-state this another way, I am not doing the thing where commercial programmers complain that GPL code must be avoided at all cost, and they can only use MIT code because one line of gpl code will mean they have to give away all their multibillion dollar proprietary shit. They say things that sound almost the same as what I just said, but the difference is they are complaining about not being free to steal something that's already free. They can use gpl code in commercial products just fine. They can even sell gpl software straight up. The only freedom the gpl infringes on is the freedom to deny the next guy the freedom you enjoyed. It only blocks the freedom to be a dick.

This FUTO thing, it's obviously an attempt to do something about a certain form of bad behavior where someone else gets to make a lot of money from something someone else wrote and gave them for free, and they are not obligated to share any with the original authors, and so they don't. That's not a bad desire to try to address that, but this way of doing it is just misguided and ill-conceived that's all. It does not really produce the result they are aiming for. It just produces the result that, the most thoughtful and principled developers and users will avoid them. Oh there will still be some number of fans and adopters. But that doesn't mean anything. You can put a turd in a shoebox and sell it to someone, and the internet makes everywhere the center of Times Square so you will easily find a population of those someones.

[kragen]

i mostly agree, but i'm not as harsh on free for noncommercial use licenses like futo's. i'm not planning to use their keyboard (even though the network effects you rightly identify with respect to kicad and eagle aren't in play) but i think using it might be a reasonable thing to do. i was only criticizing someone, who is presumably unaffiliated with futo, for falsely claiming it's open source, and for spreading defamatory lies about chris peterson and the osi

[hollerith]

>OSI didn’t invent the term. It was invented by Christine Peterson in 1998.

It was suggested by Peterson in a conversation with the founders of OSI. The conversation went something like this: "Hey, Christine Peterson, the FSF is doing a bad job explaining free software to business owners and executives, and we think we can do better. Right now we're trying to come up with a replacement for the name 'free software'". The only reason anyone ever started using the phrase "open source" in the context of software licensing is because of the activism of OSI.

[lowkey]

This statement is factually incorrect. The OSI didn’t even exist when the term was invented by Christine Peterson on February 3rd, 1998.

It is true that she was looking for a term to replace “free software” with something more akin to free speech than free beer but she specifically avoided adding any constraints either way on limitations for licensees to commercialize works in order to remain non-political.

Notably the inventor of the term has never been a part of the Open Source Initiative and the term Open Source pre-dates the oSI.

[hollerith]

I notice that you didn't try to refute my assertion that she was in a conversation with the founders of OSI when she coined the term or my assertion that if it weren't for OSI, the public would have never heard of the phrase "open source" as applied to software licenses.

Also, has Peterson ever published anything on the subject of software licenses? I severely doubt it.

You are trying to influence public opinion by citing facts out of context and ignoring any facts that disagree with your chosen narrative. Your motivation is probably to justify your using the phrase "open source" in a misleading way to market something you have a personal interest in.

[card_zero]

Is FUTO an acronym? https://www.futo.org/about/what-is-futo/ doesn't say.

[cvwright]

You can backronym all kinds of things into it.

But in reality it’s four letters that sound good together. (And for which a domain name was available, I assume.)

[card_zero]

It's also a Nigerian university. But I'll go with "FU Tech Oligopoly".

[yjftsjthsd-h]

> specifically to protect against exploitation by tech giants.

What exploitation does (A)GPL not protect against?

[em-bee]

the (A)GPL does not protect me from a big resourceful company running my code and selling services based on it competing against me, while not paying me a dime.

most such companies avoid the AGPL because it prevents them from creating proprietary extensions to the code, but not because it would prevent them from commercially exploiting the code and profiting from it.

the problem that FUTO is trying to address is the commercial exploitation at the expense of the original creators. a problem that several companies (redis, mongodb, elasticsearch, zerotier, terraform, vagrant, and many more...) in recent years had to face, causing them to change their license.

it's a problem that bruce perens is also trying to address: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38783500 "What comes after open source? Bruce Perens is working on it"

[notpushkin]

I'm wondering why FUTO doesn't use AGPL for its Android apps – it's not like anybody is going to run them on a server. To prevent forks removing the payment requirement, perhaps? It's not really going to stop pirates though.

[simion314]

>To prevent forks removing the payment requirement, perhaps? It's not really going to stop pirates though.

I think is to prevent shits forking it and putting ads or malware in the programs, Like those asholes that put malware in VLC and then paid Google to have their website on top of the search results. Indeed Google will accept money from your competition or from bad people to put their shit websites on top of a legit result.

[nani8ot]

> I think is to prevent shits forking it and putting ads or malware in the programs, Like those asholes that put malware in VLC and then paid Google to have their website on top of the search results.

Disallowing distribution of software under the original name is already covered by trademarks. If someone doesn't care about trademarks they likely won't care about them not being allowed to distribute the app commercially nor change the payment links.

It's fine for FUTO to put those terms in the license, but the reason given isn't entirely convincing, given trademarks laws exist.

[simion314]

For me makes sense, I do not afford to send lawyers about some assholes that screwed with my trademark, I prefer to send Google Play evidence that the application stole my code and had it removed from the store. Users can hack the app and share it with themselves without commercial gains without a problem.

Maybe we need a new GPLv4 where we add restrictions like no ads, no malware, no stealing of private data, if your company uses GPLv4 and puts ads, steals private data or deplys malware or scams then you lose your license.

[em-bee]

trademarks don't prevent you from making a copy and marketing it under a different name. you still get to profit from my work

also, a trademark needs to be actively enforced. that costs money. something a small developer like me can not afford. copyright protection is automatic and i don't risk losing it if i decide not to go after a violator. i can always change my mind later.

[kragen]

chris peterson did in fact found osi, in the sense that she was at the meeting which founded it; see https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source... for her account. google, apple, and microsoft did not. where are you getting this nonsense