146
submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by King@lemy.lol to c/opensource@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] intrepid@lemmy.ca 4 points 9 months ago

FSF has the term 'free software', which is well defined as to what qualifies as free software. In fact, it predates the term 'open source'. OSI created the 'open source' definition based on FSF's model.

But like the term open source, there are those around with malicious vested interests who insist that these terms are generic and the publicly accepted strict definitions don't apply. Their intention is to take advantage of 'free software' and 'open source' tags without making the necessary compromises.

Any new definitions will have the same problem. The only solution is to call out the above mentioned people for dishonesty and their attempts to take advantage of FOSS definitions.

[-] jackpot@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago
[-] intrepid@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago

I don't think anyone can sue them, unless the terms 'open source' and 'free software' are trademarked. I doubt that they are. Any party can be sued for violation of licensing terms. But these definitions aren't licenses by themselves either.

this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2024
146 points (96.2% liked)

Open Source

31349 readers
167 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS