[lowkey]

Correction, it isn’t open-source according to the definition of opensource.org - an organization that famously did not invent the term but just co-opted it and whose primary source of funding comes from private closed-source tech giants such as Google, Apple, and Microsoft - a clear and very serious conflict of interest.

[Brian_K_White]

You keep going on about them not inventing the term, as though that matters.

They din't invent it, they proposed a formal definition, and other people agreed, and have been using the term to mean that meaning for decades by now.

You can't change the meaning to suit yourself at this point after other people have already used it. That would be changing other people's words. You can't very well accuse OSI or anyone else of the crime of presumtion while being willing to do that.

"did not invent the term" is just a totally pointless and silly thing to even think about or say. It's as silly as saying that Websters didn't invent the words they write down definitions for.

[lowkey]

It’s a fair point that “did not invent the term” is not a valid criticism and I retract my earlier comment.

I still stand by my comment that the OSI is an organization that profits directly from significant funding by closed-source big tech players and therefore has a strong conflict of interest in their definition of open-source according to their Open Source Definition.

The OSD is defined specifically to ensure that open source code, except GPL can be commercially exploited and effectively become closed-source by big tech.

Famously, Christine Peterson the woman who did invent the term, defined "open source software” in 1998 as software which included the freedom to view, modify, and distribute the software's source code.

She made no claims about the ability to commercially exploit open source software without compensating the original author(s). Those terms were added later by the OSI definition.

I do think it would be more accurate to claim that software with terms limiting commercial exploitation is “open-source” per the original definition, but is not in compliance with the OSI’s Open Source Definition (OSD)

[marcinzm]

The FUTO license does not allow for the freedom to view, modify, and distribute the software's source code. It allows it for certain groups and activities but that is the same as not allowing it.

> You may use or modify the software only for non-commercial purposes such as personal use for research, experiment, and testing for the benefit of public knowledge, personal study, private entertainment, hobby projects, amateur pursuits, or religious observance, all without any anticipated commercial application.

This severely limits the freedom to modify the software or even use it as only certain ways of modifying it are allowed.

> Notwithstanding the above, you may not remove or obscure any functionality in the software related to payment to the Licensor in any copy you distribute to others.

This limits the ability to modify the software in any situation.

> I do think it would be more accurate to claim that software with terms limiting commercial exploitation is “open-source” per the original definition, but is not in compliance with the OSI’s Open Source Definition (OSD)

No it wouldn't be. You can read all the things said regarding free software for more history since open source was per it's original definition merely a renaming of free software.

[lowkey]

“The FUTO license does not allow for the freedom to view, modify, and distribute the software's source code. It allows it for certain groups and activities but that is the same as not allowing it.”

The FUTO license allows all these things but with the limitation that it not be for the purposes of:

A/ subverting the original code’s payment terms if any, or

B/ commercializing the software as a licensee without payment to the licensor

This is in clear violation of the terms of an open source license under the open-source definition (OSD)TM of the OSI.

However it does not violate the original definition of the term open source as coined by Christine Peterson who specifically did not apply any commercialization constraints in either direction in order to remain non-political.

She simply claimed the term "open source" was intended to highlight the importance of making source code available for use, modification, and distribution without the political connotations of "free software"

The constraints against limiting commercialization were introduced by the OSI in their definition, in my opinion based on influence from their closed-source big tech financial sponsors.

[yencabulator]

You can argue against OSI as much as you want, but this license isn't compliant with the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) either.

https://wiki.debian.org/DebianFreeSoftwareGuidelines

[josephcsible]

> The OSD is defined specifically to ensure that open source code, except GPL can be commercially exploited and effectively become closed-source by big tech.

That is a real problem, but the solution is to move towards GPL, not away from open source.