FUTO Does Not Support Open Source And That's OK
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 06. 2024
- By now you've probably heard quite a bit about FUTO the "open source" organization that Louis Rossmann is a part of but we need to stop trying to define what Open Source means, the term is already confusing enough without a 2nd definition
==========Support The Channel==========
► Patreon: brodierobertson.xyz/patreon
► Paypal: brodierobertson.xyz/paypal
► Liberapay: brodierobertson.xyz/liberapay
► Amazon USA: brodierobertson.xyz/amazonusa
==========Resources==========
Blog Post: danb.me/blog/futo-open-source...
Confusion Cases Repo: github.com/ssddanbrown/Open-S...
FUTO Open Source Definition: futo.org/about/open-source-de...
Real open Source Definition: opensource.org/osd
Grayjay License: gitlab.futo.org/videostreamin...
=========Video Platforms==========
🎥 Odysee: brodierobertson.xyz/odysee
🎥 Podcast: techovertea.xyz/youtube
🎮 Gaming: brodierobertson.xyz/gaming
==========Social Media==========
🎤 Discord: brodierobertson.xyz/discord
🐦 Twitter: brodierobertson.xyz/twitter
🌐 Mastodon: brodierobertson.xyz/mastodon
🖥️ GitHub: brodierobertson.xyz/github
==========Credits==========
🎨 Channel Art:
Profile Picture:
/ supercozman_draws
#Linux #FUTO #OpenSource #FOSS #FairCode
🎵 Ending music
Track: Debris & Jonth - Game Time [NCS Release]
Music provided by NoCopyrightSounds.
Watch: • Debris & Jonth - Game ...
Free Download / Stream: ncs.io/GameTime
DISCLOSURE: Wherever possible I use referral links, which means if you click one of the links in this video or description and make a purchase I may receive a small commission or other compensation. - Věda a technologie
Some thoughts, off the top of my head. Here is a question for you, since I've tried to push the ball forward with the license thing for a year _(particularly with getting the horible rugpull part removed from the dumpster fire that was the year-long "temporary" license)_
*If we referred to this license as **_"source first"_** rather than **_"open source",_** how would you feel about that? I'd like to give some history as to why this was referred to the way it was, the organization's thoughts, my **_personal_** thoughts, and the direction we'd like to move in into the future.*
_“Open source”_ has a particular meaning to the community, and suggested we call it _“source available”_ instead. Here’s why we haven’t done that:
_“Source available”_ commonly means you can’t redistribute modified versions, or unmodified versions, of the software. This doesn’t apply to FUTO software.
_“Source available”_ commonly means you can’t create derivative works, or modified versions. This does not apply to our software.
_“Source available”_ commonly means that you must pay to see the source code. This does not apply to our software.
_“Source available”_ commonly means that software can only be used within a specific organization, but not be available outside of that organization. This does not apply to our software.
Thus, FUTO called these projects open source. FUTO didn’t care about OSI’s definition, and thought it arrogant of an organization that has confidential charter members and Microsoft as a sponsor to define it. I also believe they haven't done much to prevent the spread of closed source, subscription based, spyware from becoming the norm. People use google apps over nextcloud, and adobe premiere over kdenlive for a reason. google calendar works, and adobe premiere allows me to use a compressor plugin that actually allows me to see a visual representation of gain reduction. While open source software runs the server world & the internet, just using the linux kernel & apache without a doubt; in the world of niche professional software, or consumer software... I think it's lost very badly.
_“Source available”_ is commonly understood to encompass projects with far more restrictive terms than our software.
_“Open source”_ is commonly understood to have no financial limitations on one’s ability to use the software commercially.
Neither one of the community’s definitions fully fits what we’re doing. Using either of them is bad. The former is a disservice to us, and the latter is a disservice to you. A fair compromise, I think, would be making our own term.
_“Source first”_ would describe our software, and fit our values;
*Here’s where source first & our values align with the community’s definition of open source:*
1. Our licenses allow users to see source code of all of our software.
2. Our licenses ensure that you can modify the source code for your own use, and redistribute it.
3. Our licenses ensure that our software is not limited to use by a particular organization.
4. Our principles demand that any client we release that requires a server, also releases the server software under principles as free as the client software.
5. Our software avoids integration of crypto shitcoin scams.
6. Our software rejects “the customer is the product” as a business model.
*Here’s where source first & our values part ways with the community’s definition of open source:*
1. We believe in a programmer’s ability to have the legal right to demand financial compensation for commercial use of their code. It's not enough for a programmer to have the _ask_ for money politely; we want them to have the legal right to _demand_ commercial entities pay. ffmpeg getting a few programmers for google summer of code, while the backbone of youtube is key to them bringing in 31 billion dollars a year isn't a fair exchange of value. Under all current open source licenses, they can *ask* for money, but they can't _demand_ money.
2. We believe that community ownership of software has not led to consumer-facing-software that beats closed source alternatives, and that this has not, and will not, be a winning model.
I think the community likes what we’re doing. They like that we fund consumer-facing software projects like Immich that seek to beat google photos & iCloud. They like that we’ve donated millions to non-profits like Signal, Tor, Repair Preservation Group, GrapheneOS, MicroG, Mobility Independence Foundaiton, and many other organizations that use traditional, OSI-compliant license, that fit the community's definition of open source.
They don’t like that we’ve used the term open source. Technically, legally, nobody _“owns”_ that term. OSI doesn’t own that term. So we used it; but culturally, the community own that term. Frankly, *as I've told my boss personally many times, you can be technically correct, and still be a complete dickhead.* You're not going against OSI when you do this; you're going against _the community._
I don't have it in me to give you all some adobe crisis management blog post bullshit, so I'll put my thoughts here:
I've had an idea of what open source meant since I first bought & installed Suse Linux professional in 2002. I had no idea what OSI was, or how they defined software, or what they even did until i started working here. *While working here, I've made my stance unequivocally clear; I don't think it makes sense to have all of this good will created by having the fellowship programs we have, donating millions to open source that ARE MIT/Apache/AGPL/GPL licensed, funding projects internally that kick ass & use AGPL licenses for some; all to lose it over what you call your licenses. Being technically correct has, and always will, in the public eye, be less important than being culturally correct & taking action that does not cause the community to see us all as dickheads.*
I'd like to advocate internally for that to change, without compromising our values, or the community's.
This is all an experiment; at the end, it comes down to this. If we create software that doesn’t abuse the public; will people pay for it? Will programmers quit working for google, apple, facebook, amazon, and microsoft; and decide to work on GOOD software instead? Because they believe they can actually _make a living from it?_
We don't see people doing that right now for consumer software. For many pieces, there _isn't even an option_ to not be abused by traditional closed souce/cloud bullshit, and that sucks. Someone has to go first and give this a shot, to even have a chance of success, prior to others giving it a go. If we fund that software to the tune of millions of dollars per year, in order to make it great under the terms we've created; will people support it financially? If we can demonstrate that they WILL, can we get more programmers to change their habits? That is FUTO's goal.
It'll include stumbles along the way. I believe this was one of them, that can be addressed, improved, & fixed along the way.
Thoughts, as always, appreciated.
Personally I find Source First to be a good compromise, it will be seen if people agree with me
Source first is great, I think. But those statements about 'source available' don't really make sense, I mean if you look up any definition it pretty much fits your license (i.e. the source is made available, but not openly for reuse like FOSS would be).
«I think the community likes what we’re doing. […] They like that we’ve donated millions to […] organizations that use traditional, OSI-compliant license, that fit the community's definition of open source.»
don't muddy the water, this video is not about that topic
«If we create software that doesn’t abuse the public [in FUTO's opinion]; will people pay for it?»
many people from the FOSS community (realistically speaking, a huge portion of your potential customers) won't pay if it's nonfree
I would feel pedantic picking at your specific wordings, but id like to point out that when you need to give A history lesson and multiple definitions to make saying the things we want you to, mean the things your already saying. I start to feel like your doing rhetorical gymnastics to make your perspective make sense when it logically doesn't.
But I mostly recognize your summery as accurate and I like the term "Source First" as much as any other, and really I don't think I can reasonably ask for better than honesty.
So thanks for the honesty Louis, it means A lot to me.
As long as you remove BS about being forced to pay you for using/forking/modifying your software, I have no problem with it.
If you want to get paid and be a fat cat like all the other companies, don't pretend to be open source. Be a nice, closed source company and stay that way.
We've created the genre of Open Source-likes, fantastic
What about a strand-type license?
@@shApYTis shigawire open source or prop?
Post avant open sourcecore.
stallman already did with his "libre" thing
I hope Futo guys see this.
Tech over tea with them would be nice
We thought the Primagen interview was a big deal. Imagine if Brodie got to talk with Rossmann for two hours!
I would absolutely love that
Yeah, Tech Over Tea with the Futa guys would be great.
@@benign4823 futa? 😂😅
@@GSBarlev Thing is I don't think Rossmann would be the right one to talk about the software licensing stuff on though. Great for most other topics, but you would likely want Eron, for the this isn't actually open-source conversation.
Im with Brodie on this. The standard definition of OpenSource has come about through decades of debate and refinement. Its like it is for a reason and calling something different open source ignores all of that.
I agree with you in spirit. But in practice and the long run I'm afraid Brodie, you, and I, will all prove to be old fuddie duddies shaking their fists about some jibber jabber nobody cares about. The fact is, the words "open source" have leaked out from the geeks to the general public. The general public has heard "open source" in context and already decided what the words mean. There are more of them than us. Many, many more. They are the ones who get to decide what it means, now, in their world. If we don't like it, in ours, that's going to be our problem.
There is no reason, aside from convention, that the OSI is officially in charge of the meaning of "open source" or any other words. OSI can say it's in their charter or whatever they call it. I, and others, can choose to defer to and respect those definitions. But neither of these choices mean it's officially the OSI's job to define anything, outside of social cliques where this is taken as a given. In this respect, we now speak a dialect. The OSI definition of open source will be jargon, now, and dictionary meaning of the words is going to be somewhere in the ballpark of "transparent" or "nice."
This has already happened. I don't like it one bit and it will irk me to the day I die. But it's a done deal already, no point spleening myself about it :)
@@gmt-yt Sadly I have to agree with you, and so dose Brodie. Else we all will have to start calling our OS GNU/Linux
I haven't seen any debate or refinement over the last few years. It kind of looks like OSI's definition is set in stone and potentially starting to go stale, and FUTO is stepping in to provide some debate and refinement. And since Open Source is not a trademarked term, they are free to ignore OSI's definition.
@@gmt-yt I agree. Before OSI came around and tried to make a very specific definition of "open source", it was already broadly used about software where sources were available somehow. "Open" was already in use commercially (OSF, OpenGroup, Open LOOK, OpenVMS etc), "open source" could mean anything from "source code available to partners and/or customers" to "source code available from FTP server somewhere in Finland". In the end it doesn't matter, as "open source" is just a catch phrase, what does matter are the licenses.
To my eyes it's not about the terminology of the word Opensource it's the misinterpretation of that terminology that has hobbled this Operating System these last 20+ years. And, the insistence that everybody must follow the hurd (pun) to be here. Hence why we will never see the likes of Canva (i.e. Affinity), or Adobe ever officially porting their Warez to this Platform. Which is a shame, as this grants MicroSoft a near monopoly in the PC OS Space. I mean what are you going to do, run Hackintosoh? That's only going to last for so long, and it's already jumped the Cliffface, and Down is the only direction x86 MacOS is heading in. So if that was an option 10 years ago, it's less of one today.
Linux has to um evolve past it's left think if it's ever going to wish to have it's year of title. Otherwise it will forever remain as that odd niche bit of enthusiast nerd-ware, forever alone to pull harmless backoffice Sever jobs where nobody will take notice, or care.
There’s a problem with “Open” in software and company names. OpenAI being a notable example. Anyone can make a piece of software with any license and call it Open*.
The Open in OpenAI does not refer to the license of its source code. In fact the name of the project has no correlation to its license. And it should stay like this. I personally don't see a problem here.
@@thingsiplay And they want people to confuse it so they look better. Also, was it always that way? Once upon a time they weren't so closed source.
@@Aeroxima But that's not really a problem. People who know what Open Source is won't get confused by just the name. And even if so, its a quick check if its Open Source or not. And for people who don't know what Open Source is, doesn't matter anyway.
So in practical world, it does not matter if a projects name start or include the word "Open" and doe snot have an Open Source license. Also the license can change at any time anyway. Are projects that do not include "Open" in the name not Open Source?
My point is, its not a real problem in the real world that needs to be regulated or solved.
I'm old enough to remember Acer aOpen's lineup of prebuilts, which were neither free, open, nor saucy.
Bit beyond the scope there. Simply using "open" in a name doesn't equate to being either good or bad. In the context of software it depends on the principles and/or license of the entity being represented. For example i don't think OpenZFS is a bad moniker.
Im still not understanding... Ill have to do some personal research on this futa thing
good luck on your federal unemployment tax act learning endeavours
Lol, good luck with your futa research.
There are some comics and mangas out there, that explain the concept in an easily digestible way.
Just type "futa comic" or "futa manga" in the search engine of your choice.
This topic seems to be quite widespread given the amount of results and variety of content the search provides. No idea when that happened... or why
On my way to change the definition of proprietary software to be less evil
Definitions do change over time.
Many have said open source needs to change as companies make billions stealing from open source devs. Then later sue them to take down their own work losing it forever.
I had a "source license" for Solaris and Plesk bitd. No, not Open Solaris, before that. That's closed source. I paid for access to it, the right to compile it to my own ends, and zero right to sell the result without paying the additional fees for such licensing. Never was there a right to redistribute the source code. It was closed.
Minecraft Java is _de facto_ "source available," as Mojang even publishes their own de-obfuscators. I don't know if this has ever been legally codified, but their attitude has been: "You can alter the code" (through mods) "as long as you don't publish the original code, and as long as you don't sell your mods," and even that _last_ bit hadn't been enforced, as a bunch of mods these days are locked down-either in early access or completely-behind Patreon paywalls.
Yes and we moved past that definition of being open when GNU, linux, and BSD all happened in a span of a decade putting the final nail in the coffin of that commercial unix world.
@@thelakeman2538 but you aren't forbidden from using GNU, Linux and BSD commercially
If the source was given to you it was not open, if it was given to the public it was open. Because that is the meaning of open in this context - open to the public. And this is where open source has the wrong name. It uses the word open in a way where more than open is attached to the meaning. Like for example "not controlled". Open source is "open not controlled source", not just "open source". The word open does not have any connotation of control in the english language, except in this case. You can have an open store that you control, you can have an open party which you control, etc. Since the word open just means "exposed, unconcealed, accessible, available, visible", and has no other connotations of control, which the open source license attached to its name. If anybody is misleading regarding the word open, sadly it is the open source license. Any source that is made available to the public should be called open, because that is what it means in the English language. All the other strings attached require other words to be used. In this case it is "relinquished source" or something similar where it is inferred that the previous owner no longer wants to control it further.
@@GSBarlev I'm not sure the last bit is even enforceable under US Law except by saying that you are no longer licensed to use Minecraft by violating the terms of the agreement.
Code you wrote yourself is intrinsically your code and interfacing with other software isn't illegal.
In the end it comes down to exactly what you're doing and whether it violates a licensing agreement, terms of service, etc.
Open Sauce
real
open sores
June 14-16 at the Cow Palace in San Francisco
Open Sores
AsumSaus
I learnt something! Thank you!
I still believe FUTO is needed. It's a great way to offer a high-quality and valuable product while still letting it stay completely free for those who need it. In our current society I believe we need to start building an understanding of value for the products we use, otherwise the mega corporations we know will keep growing, increasing prices and selling us garbage.
What would happen if the majority of Windows users finally woke up, and decided they had enough of MicroSofts spying and decided to go somewhere decidedly less Fruity? But, couldn't because the Canva / Adobe Suite they depend upon has no intention to open their code up to play in the field of?
@@Ichijoe2112 My biggest gripe isn't adobe or canva. It's the office suites working in consistently with each other and none of the Excel alternatives being able to compete with Excel in terms of features or feature compatibility
Is FUTO needed though? Do we really need to replace every piece of Open Source software with an incompatible less-open version?
No that ridiculous I would rather counter the argument, in asking should closed source non-free Software be barred all entry into the only other viable OS Ecosystem? Because it runs against your personal small world view?
We already have both. On Linux / Mac and PC with most of the top shelf Software:
Audacity
Darktable
DiVinci Resolve
Filezilla
Handbake
Krita
Raw Therapy
VLC
...etc
It works on Mac, and PC why can't Office 365, and Creative Cloud not work on Linux. Because the Draconian Licence Agreements are no bueno!
@@Ichijoe2112 nonfree software shouldn't exist in the first place
Regarding the XFree86 drama in 2004, it wasn't just the licensing change, which while incompatible with the GPLv2, was later confirmed to be compatible with the GPLv3, it was, like Brodie said, a bunch of issues within the management of the project. Hence, those plus the licensing changes were the final straw, and that's why XOrg was forked from XFree86. Then theres LibreOffice forked off of OpenOffice...
Re the title: Well, they _do support_ FOSS. Most projects they fund use normal, copyleft or permissive licenses.
But this video absolutely applies to their in-house software, so thank you for making it!
Only just starting with switching into Linux soon, but extremely agree.
From gamedev world, there's a definite distinction between "open source" and "source available". Unreal Engine is "source available", it is very definitely NOT open source.
I thought unreal was open source, but non-libre.
@@user-S853 no, open source and libre software are the same thing (even the OSI says that)
@@formbi But does the Free Software Foundation (FSF) say that?
Would you care to elaborate on your understanding of the distinction?
Because "source available" is simply too vague to really describe the difference between "Open Source" with my 'special license agreement' (hypotheticl) and what the FSF would call Free Software. The latter being distinct from freeware, which is only free to /use/ as-is).
I recognize this style of license terms from the shareware field... essentially, it's source-available shareware.
Apparently Software in the Public Interest _had_ a trademark on "Open Source", but it has since been "Abandoned".
Probably assuming its trademarking that for the same reason someone tried to trademark terabytes of 8 note melodies
To protect anyone else from abusing it
@@fluoriteByte The problem is that a trademark requires that it is "used in commerce" by the trademark holder to identify a "source of goods" in commerce. Holding the trademark carries certain legal responsibilities. If one holds the trademark for "open source" then one is legally required to vigorously defend that trademark. Failure to do so results in the trademark being adjudicated to be legally invalid and/ or abandoned.
2024: naming things still hardest problem in computer science
problem from the 80s that's why 'free' exists
Free software has a similar problem, people could just claim it's software with 0 cost
@@CeasiusC licenses...
Free is an awful term, it should have been libre from day one
@@BrodieRobertson but not everyone speaks spanish 😂
@@MacroAcc we don't speak French either but we use résumé lol
I don't know the exact name, but when you change the definition of a concept, you are committing a fallacy. It works like this:
- Me: my keyboard is a planet.
- You: no, your keyboard is not a planet.
- Me: yes, every rectangular object is a planet.
I was wrong when I said "my keyboard is a planet." But, if you take my definition of a planet (every rectangular object is a planet), then I'm right.
This fallacy is used by politicians, intellectuals and scammers to reinforce narratives.
I do wonder about your choice of going for a rectangular shaped object instead of an oval or spheric one?
What about when its not an individual who changes the definition of a concept, but a group of people? What if two roughly equally-sized groups of people have a different definition of the same word? Who is right?
Words in general are often not strictly defined (unless its math), they are intuited via context and patterns we have seen in the past, which often results in different people having slightly different conceptions of what a word means (for example: is a hotdog a sandwich? what about a sub?). Words are but labels for collectively-negotiated collections of physical characteristics things have, drawing boundaries of various levels of fuzziness between concepts.
@@LautaroQ2812you're a planet.
@zyansheep none are right until a formal deffinition is set in place. That's why science try to formally define concepts. Remember that debate about what is a planet? that ended with pluto being clasify as dwarf planet.
In this particullar case, there is a formal deffinition of Open Source. So in this case, FUTO are committing fallacy.
@@LautaroQ2812 to reinforce the absurdity to come out with your own definitions with the sole purpose as you being perceived as right.
Commercial exploitation of open source software seems to be something that people have a problem with if they do not understand what Open Source actually means. If commercial exploitation was not allowed no linux distro could ever have been released on pressed discs at retail.
I understand they want to compensate the original developers but long term this is impossible to keep track of. People change addresses, change identities and become almost impossible to find after a while.
fun fact: Linux originally had a non-commercial license, but Torvalds eventually changed it
I think available source is a better term for futo's apps
I have been bugging louis about this since day one and he has found excuses to ignore this at every turn!
My comments get shadow banned on FUTO's channel but I have been told they don't ban commenters and that its likely youtube disliking my VPN or my long in depth comments.
Thank you for voicing my frustrations with FUTO perfectly!
Hopefully this helps encourage them to address this.
He has a million reasons to ignore it, and they are all green.
Same. Any time I mention it there, my comments get deleted. Even short, simple, extremely gentle ones.
youtube can block things totally randomly, but FUTO has a Zulip chat where you can voice your opinion
If you are speaking more than the kindest things about CZcams, I am sure that "shadow banning" is coming from CZcams.
I have a video called "youtube is fundamentally broken" on my live channel. my own comments don't show up on my own channel.
i have commented in this video with a comment explaining everything, do let me know what you think. there are things that i think this org should change, 100%, and we'll take accountability & responsibility for it.
one i cannot, is youtube randomly deleting people's comments. that is out of my control. youtube just sucks.
Might be reductionist, but I was thinking earlier into the video "Why not just go with source available?"
Their definition is fine, but they can't come in and basically reinvent the wheel and still pretend it's the wheel we all knew
FUTO's CEO has straight up said he doesn't care about OSI's defintion. They're not going to budge on it.
Unfortunately, given that I doubt OSI has a trademark on Open Source, or that it is even trademarkable at this point, we're going to lose the openwashing battle.
It's time for someone to take the FSF and OSI's defintion, create a new trademarkable term, and the community to rally around that if they care about the definition.
We already have a better term: Software Livre.
Free software people confuse with free of cost.
Open Source people confuse with source available.
Software Livre means to follow the Free Software Foundation definition. That's clearer.
This isn't a battle. This is just more FLOSS elitism. You don't have a monopoly on the definition of Open Source.
@@dustycarrier4413 Open Source means nothing if people can't agree what it means.
We need to change the term to be clear from the start.
Libre Software. No more issues with funny projects like FUTO.
Them it already means nothing, futo can launch a software that the source code is open to see, use, modify and redistribute in a non commercial way but yer stallmanning that somehow software with source code open isn't open source
Solid take. Didn't even know fair code was a thing. I can also fully understand Mr Rossman not knowing the difference either. I still support everything futo seems to be doing.
Rossmann understands it, it has been explained to the FUTO guys many times. However Eron, FUTO's owner prefers to make nonfree crap and Louis accepts the orders to lie (even though he knows the GPL is better and says he would use it himself).
Love grayjay and futo but you're completely right. It's fair code, not open source
there is 432 contributed to the project, if they contributed to the project while it was AGPL-v3, I can't imagine that you can change the license of their code without their explicit permission. maybe I'm wrong.
Unless they all signed A Contributor licensing agreement giving someone the right to republish their contributions under any other license.
Company's have used these in the past to add restrictions to the software years after it was written.
So far all evidence indicates FUTO does not use these for projects they fund, meaning the existing license should always effect future versions of their software.
There is already term for accessible but not open source: source available. Maybe some sort of view source or read source can be used as well. But yeah, open means more than just available to view, it grants use rights.
"Fair Source" could be a name for FUTO software? 10:39 never mind
Ah, language, this is going to be a bit hard to explain, but I will try.
This is a case of a clash between different "Fachsprachen" (literal translation: subject language) which describes a set of words and language construct only used for specific subjects and either not existing outside of it or having different meaning(s) outside of it.
And the latter part "or having different meaning outside of it" is the important part here. Yes, the same word can have widely different meanings depending on context.
We are talking and interpreting it in context of software development (or in context of laws).
They are talking about it in context of marketing (and they really aren't the first ones to do so, as the list you showed 1:08 shows).
Another example of clashing definitions in different "Fachsprachen" would for example be list in IT where we normally mean it as a shorthand for linked list and list in for example daily life where we normally mean a multiple rows of written down stuff (e.g. a list of names or groceries).
This, as you can maybe guess, is messy, but when it comes to human languages, that's normal.
There's a distinction to be made between words' meanings changing over time naturally, and people deliberately and strategically pushing definitions to make things look better or worse by redirecting feelings from the previous definition to the new one.
@@Aeroxima and both are natural to language evolution
language don't necessarily evolve slowly over time, rather it's currently believed to be more likely that it happens in small strong bursts followed a time of mostly stagnancy
It seems an odd choice to me to choose to market the term "open source" to software developers as meaning something different than the term open source means in the context of software development. But hey, that's just me.
These definitions have been part of dictionaries and encyclopedias for decades. No other authority is necessary. Anyone creating confusion is ignorant or a demagogue.
Bad argument. We are not discussing whether what they are doing is acceptable in linguistics. An organization is openly defying the common use of a term against everybody that is involved in this term, which is causing issues in licensing.
I thought FUTO sounded good when I first heard of it. Then I looked at the projects they're hiring for... especially FUBS. It's an attempt to replace core free software foundations with non-free non-open-source versions, since the open licenses of base libraries are incompatible with FUTO's restricted licenses. FUTO calls this "radical incompatibility", creating their own proprietary ecosystem. That's a whole pile of huge red flags. It's like saying "the problem isn't the inherently oppressive structure of a monarchy; the problem is that the wrong person is king".
What are "core free software foundations"?
I posted those jobs. While we aren't ready to talk about FUBS much publically I do want to note that FUBS will be source-available in a very strong way: "Any program must also provide the tool with which it was created and allow itself to be modified. We endeavor to make it as frictionless as possible for a user of a program to understand or modify it. Anyone using a program can become its programmer within seconds. We will insist on this via our source license."
The point of our FUBS is not to replace core open-source software, the point is to have a self-hosted system that is entirely self-contained and doesn't require backwards compatibility. Nobody is expecting hoards of people en masse to uninstall Linux/Windows and use FUBS instead.
Yep, Rossman and FUTO made me realize why "grifter" is a different word than "conman". They're weaponizing the faux-user-empowerment thing Rossman kicked off with RtR and they're doing it so expertly they don't even need to hide it. Rossman can say shit like "Voting with your wallet is a myth" and he's built up such a wild cult of personality people regurgitate it as truth despite the countless examples that have made international news that it's BS. I mean voting with your wallet is a myth so thats why Quantumania and The Marvels were breakout hits, why Bud Light is the preferred beer brand of red necks everywhere, and The Acolyte has made more money and garnered more views than the entire original star wars trilogy. Thats also why companies like Framework can sell a laptop a thousand dollars over MSRP for equivalent specs and absolutely no-one will buy it; they simply just don't have the choice - it's a myth that consumers can decide what they want! Its also why Fairphone immediately went under and never made a Fairphone 2, letalone 5, and why the Steam Deck was a complete disasterous failure after the breakout success of Steam Machines before it! Yep, its just a myth, and I know thats true because dear leader told me so!
He started off okay with shit like his "think different" video on Apple's hardware failures, but after RtR started picking up steam it rather quickly stopped being about *_actually_* empowering consumers via education and calls to action, and just became a legislative push to keep consumers docile while giving him more money and politicians more power. He's basically like Linus (Seb, not torv) where he can just openly display his BS non stop but he has enough of a charisma buffer built up no-one pays it a mind.
@@adamjesionowski4590 what are fubs? I didn't really understand it from reading the readme. Is it a framework for embedded software?
In Winamp's defense, they were very careful to NOT declare themselves open source.
Suspiciously some ammount of media started to call it that in unison though. Either they all just blind or something is going on.
I'm not a fan of the futo stuff, and I hope they learn what words mean over there, but one thing that I would like to point out is the payment thing: they say you're not allowed to remove it change links etc that are for paying the original developers, but they're also not saying that you're not allowed to add new links there for your own fork.
Overall, imo the goals FUTO set for itself cannot be achieved in any meaningful capacity with just "this simple licensing trick". Making it financially viable is mostly a social problem, while protecting your brand from malware forks is best acheived via trademarks or copyleft.
Also, you just cannot force "big tech" to pay up. If there's anything nonstandard in your license, regular employees will not touch it without their legal team and management going over it. If you want to sell your software, you have to be in the business of selling software (like Qt and unlike GTK).
I really like what FUTO is doing and I do not mind there license but I also agree with you 100%.
Thank you for covering this one. It seems pretty clear at this point that their misuse of a technical term is deliberate, and a marketing tactic.
Yeah, and even when it isn't, the company behind just find a way to give you a binary with prioprietary bs, even if the project behind was open source (vscode, chromium,...)
And what pisses me off, is that all those fake open source project, would go no where if not for the thousands of actual open source libraries written by programmers who struggle to pay rent
lol, ok 🤡
Free software, libre software and open source... all refer to the same licenses and the same software.
These definitions have been part of dictionaries and encyclopedias for decades. No other authority is necessary. Anyone creating confusion is ignorant or a demagogue.
Next they're going to start calling it FOSS for FUTO Open Source Software
I think it's fine for him to say open source in the video for convenience, but the FUTOs definition of "Open Source is just Access to the Source Code" is indeed problematic.
I'm thankful for a lot of the work Louis is doing, but it's _not_ Open Source... and any time I try to mention this on his posts or videos, my comments get mysteriously deleted.
youtube deletes a lot of comments for no reason. louis complains about this in basically every video he posts lol
I don't think louis is to blame, he's been openly engaging about this on reddit and youtube comments, I think he really does want to do the right thing but is somewhat ignorant of FOSS terminology
I don't like their license, but i guess its their project.
It's their project which they'd like to force on everyone. Reinventing hot water and punching down to add division and create distension
I don't like their license either, and at first I thought it was just a noob mistake... but it turns out the license is the point. With projects like FUBS, they're trying to replace entire software ecosystems with more or less the same thing, but with a more restrictive license.
@@ToyKeeper I think its a little disingenous to say theyre trying to replace the open source ecosystem more like "they've barred themselves out of the common libraries so need to make their own to support their goals" in the same way any business locks itself out of gpl libraries and so just makes its own. Replacing it in their own usage but its not replacing the library at large in any way
"Since the obvious meaning for “open source” is not the meaning that its advocates intend, the result is that most people misunderstand the term" - RMS
Mmmmm yea i saw part of that rossman video saying basically "open source, but you buy it", which... doesn't make a lot of sense at face value.
Open Source absolutely can be paid. In fact, only the people that pay are entitled to the code.
Thank you! I've been speaking out on this, thought I was alone.
I've been trying to talk about it too, but any time I mention it on Rossman's posts or videos, my comments get deleted.
GJ mentioned. Inb4 this video gets delisted. 😂
Ok, there's is one thing they have done very FOSS way, even GNU way I would say: naming the organization. XD
After watching your video I can definitely say that they are not open sourcing the code, and I hate when somebody missuses terms. I've learned a lot about open source today and to be honest, I hope is a honest mistake from they're part and they didn't actually tried to misslead their users. Great Video.
In that the OSI open source definition starts with "Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code.", and FUTO's open source definition starts with "Open source just means access to the source code." I'm pretty sure it was intentional
Rossman should have consulted with Cory Doctorow before making the announcement; he could have saved himself a lot of headaches.
Magnificent explainer.
Brilliant! Thanks so much for it with such excellent didactics!
I would borderline call this scummy because they want to take all the good will that OSS provides but without actually doing the thing properly. I call this false advertisement.
They could just come up with their own moniker. SCALE : Source Code Available and Licensed Entity
Doesn't have the "free" in it as FLOSS does, but that's pretty accurate no?
I'm shocked that the Futo guy, who literally says "Open source just means the source code is available", never did a Google search to check, saw the Open Source Initiative, looked at their definition, and saw the very first line is "Open source does not just mean the source code is available". I feel like when he wrote his definition he just felt comfortable lying about it.
The thing is, OSI didn't invent the term or the concept of open source. Yeah, they seem to have done a great job of convincing people that they own the term, but it existed long before they did.
@@mattelder1971 The OSI is a product of pre-existing open source software and was written as a formal definition of what open source was, contributed to by the exact people that were writing said software at the time, a formal definition coming to exist after its use does not violate the formal definition being well defined. Your claim is fallacious.
Yeah, I can make source code available through dead trees, or read only file. Now ask me how I can modify or redistribute that code.
@@user-oj7uc8tw9r I'm not sure if there's anything in the open source definition (or free software), that would prevent you from distributing source code only on paper.
@@Spartan322 a “formal definition” by a committee with no power, and no authority to define anything… doesn’t sound very formal to me. OSI is just a company like any other, who never got the trademark for the words “open source” and thus can’t tell anybody what it means.
Huh fair source may be what 'post-open' could look like
maybe I'm too new to this space but what else should it be called, really? "with source available"?
Yes, it's called "source available license".
These definitions have been part of dictionaries and encyclopedias for decades. No other authority is necessary. Anyone creating confusion is ignorant or a demagogue.
@@nandoflorestan neat, i went on a search form here to find out more and all of this seems like fair criticism. I felt like it was a bit harsh because "if i don't know the difference i wouldn't hold up that standard to anyone else" but it really is just a case of me missing the memo lol
@@BirbIrl Yea I think a lot of the confusion is just people don't even bother to check wikipedia about the history and meaning of these terms, that does tend to eliminate miscommunication lol
This is informative, and unfortunate
nice pfp
I Agree! Futo is NOT OpenSource.
As an example of a source available program that is well-known Unreal Engine comes to mind.
In the end, main purpose is to earn money. I doubt Luis took part in all those right to repair movements because of being a philanthropist, that's just a side effect.
Do not even get me started on this org. Short sighted is the kindest way i could describe it.
Call it what it is, not what it's not
This is one of the many reasons I don't like VC money on open source anything. VC investors don't understand what open source is and that's the problem. They assume they can put rules on the future of the project.
It's a billionaire walking in and trying to gain all the marketing benefits of being 'open' while actually releasing proprietary software lol
It's like...
Monarchies are bad. Power should be spread among the people.
I guess this is another example of those who want freedom as in liberty but not freedom as in beer.
Aka do you want to suffer or do you want to be cheap.
@BrodieRobertson 10:43 what if the project say the only sensible attribution is shipping with their trademark?(aka onlyoffice license terms in its site)
I don't really think that organizations should be able to control the definitions of words, though I don't believe what FUTA is doing is that useful either since it is confusing to people. Though I am quite fine with the definition of open source shifting over time. I do think the current ecosystem isn't really able to shine a light on alternative licenses that for example are non commercial except for workers co-ops, or things such as that, so maybe opensource becoming more loose would help with that? A bit of a stretch though to be honest.
These definitions have been part of dictionaries and encyclopedias for decades. No other authority is necessary. Anyone creating confusion is ignorant or a demagogue.
@@nandoflorestan Your first statement comes into a descriptivist vs prescriptivist arguments about language, all dictionaries for the english language are made at reflecting the way words are used by people and not to be a authority on what words should mean.
Also calling people demagogues is a rather confusing statement? I don't really know how to respond to it, it feels quite vague and so I don't know what the core point of it is.
I like how you started by explaining what is Futo.
Yes, the problem is not what they are doing but how they are marketing what they are doing.
The term "Open Source" (in full) has become understood as not just source code available but comes with other elements as described in the definition. As such, FUTO could have legal action taken against them, and because of the public understanding of the term and OSD, FUTO would loose.
FUTOs argument would be further weakened by the fact that other definitions of what they are doing DO exist, such as the "Fair-Code" definition. Also that the term "Source Available" exists to make it clear as to what is not open source.
Their marketing amounts to false advertising even if they make no charge for what they are supplying.
Given the understanding of "Open Source" and the OSD, they are misleading the public and developers.
Given that they have use the term "Open Source", they should be made to change that to "Fair-Code" AND make a corrective statement that it is NOT open source.
I'm working on an open source Android app with a small banner ad in one of Activities and it's a little annoying that someone can just upload the exact copy of the app without the ad lol. It's allowed, it's just kinda petty, doncha think?
While no disrespect to Louis Rossmann for what he's done, there's a lot of things he does that is completely wrong and he sees no harm in doing it. So it's not a complete surprise he'd misunderstand open source as well, when he thinks there is nothing wrong with selling 3rd party batteries with the Apple logo on them and crying foul when Apple seizes the shipment as counterfeit. (Because they are counterfeit Apple batteries - Apple did not sanction their manufacture and thus they're bearing the Apple trademark illegally). I think this might be a case where celebrity status overwhelms logical thinking - like actors preaching about stuff they know nothing about, or scientists going on about stuff outside their fields of study and so on.
Thanks for your balanced comment on this thorny issue. I also see what Futo is trying to achieve and I think their motives are likely in the right place. I have seen over the years having devoted a lifes work to OS solutions and in particlular Linux that there are those out there happy to take from the OS movement whilst thinking nothing of giving zero back. These are often organisations with more wealth than we could as individuals even dream of having. I can't blame 10x programmers and the rest of us alike to then work for big corps in order to earn a living but it doesnt right this wrong. I dont know what the answer is but something has to change if OS is to thrive and be sustainable.
This video also applies to RHEL. Great OS, but it's not Open Source.
does this mean any company that seperates their Community Edition from their regular version not considered pen source?
why do you have this opinion, the regular version is propitiatory and the community version gives all freedoms of OSS and thus it is OSS
@@ritvikjahagirdar some community editions are different from the open source one.
Example Pfsense CE is different from PFsense Plus, Red hat vs Cent OS, Grafana Open Source vs Enterprise, Gitlab CE vs Gitlab EE, Nginx Open Source vs Nginx Plus, etc...
Technically you cannot access the enterprise edition and according to Opens source initiative - this is a different license.
This is technically Dual Licensing - they keep a proprietary version of their Product and older fewer featured version can be open sourced. They can choose to open source a less functional version of their product.
Great analysis! I was grasping for the term fair code versus open source, since "source available" licenses as a whole don't necessarily respect most of the freedoms that are fundamentally part of FOSS and FUTO is definitely going beyond the mere definition of "source available" to provide as many freedoms as possible while still ensuring some protection against exploitation by businesses while also not forcing them to divulge their internal secret sauce built upon the application. Fair code is a great concept that makes a best-effort at freedom but is still distinct and separate from FOSS, just as not all FOSS is FLOSS!
If I pay it’s not open source.
That being said I feel if you are making money from an open source project you might want to pay to maintain it.
It absolutely can be
you can sell open source software (but this isn't it)
Question, If you have a copyleft license such that it forces you to make any modification public, plus the attribution clause, plus trademark clause, why would anyone trying to "steal" your code and put ads have a big incentive to do so? Because, if they try to use your brand, you sue them, if they try to hide code, you sue them, if they hide the fact they use your code, you sue them. at that point anyone can see that there is a version that has no ads and is free, why would anyone use your version? even if you enhanced the code to be better, since it is copyleft, you would be forced to publish those changes back and upstream could just pick them up.
There are even clauses that say that you cannot "link" the binaries such that you consume the free code in a proprietary wrapper that can add closed source code. I think such license (LGPL I think is like this) should work just fine.
Otherwise, I don't know which licenses apps like Crypto Wallets and Password Managers, that need to be audited but are definitely proprietary, use, but that could also fit the bill here. They are open because of security, not because they are free software.
What GPL license forces you to make the code public?
I can't think of one.
If you don't distribute your changes, you don't have to make it public. People fork GPL code into private repos or just download it and modify it for their own purposes.
If you do distribute, you only have to give it to those who download the binary - that is kind of a pain so everyone just publishes the source in a public repo.
You can even sell your program and only give the source to the people who paid - but those people can redistribute the source under the terms of the license, including selling it.
I'm going to agree I think: What FUTO is doing is understandable and a perfectly valid form of license. It's also a license that does not hold up to any definition of "open source" in that it's restricting what you can _do_ with said source. and yes, I'm aware, that makes all kinds of other 'free' licenses not open source because they have similar restraints. Guess what? I'm _okay_ with this. However, I'm not okay with people calling it 'open source' when what they mean is 'source is avalible for you to tinker and share noncommercially'
for one second I thought it was FUTA and got sad
As in Futanari?
2 nari
I'm not seeing anything in the license that says you must share your modifications just that you need to give a notice that it's been modified. So you could technically create a modified version that is technically better without giving FUTO, or any upstream if you've forked from a downstream project, your source. FUTO would have to do something like buy your modifications off of you and maybe that's their intention to incentivize improvements to the software.
Even with the limitations of releasing commercial forks you could still have something like Subscribestar, Ko-Fi or Patreon for people to donate to you. People could still create bug bounties or feature bounties that you could fulfill in your own fork of the project that doesn't have to be shared with upstream.
I'm not a license lawyer but I also don't see anything restricting how modifications are to be licensed. That means they could just, again I could be wrong, use a different license for the modifications. While they can't do a Microsoft and "Embrace Extend Extinguish" since they can't release it behind a paywall (that includes a donation paywall). Again, this could be intentional so FUTO can buy the modifications.
I just really hope that the protocols they are making for things like Polycentric will be open source so other people can incorporate them into their own applications.
Polycentric's protocall is BSD 3clause, I plan to make alternative apps to support the ecosystem and add some cool stuff like WebAnnotation's support.
@@nullvoid3545 That's good to know. Good luck with your project.
I told them this in no uncertain terms on the day they announced Grayjay. Louis just didn't care at that point and at that point it was only him calling it open source. It is disappointing to see they have doubled down on not respecting the OSD by OSI.
Edit: I understand that now Louis is trying to internally push for the use of an alternative term like "source first" (which I am ok with) but I have doubts about the success of this endeavour. Open washing is usually intentional and if the higher ups of the company have set their mind on it I doubt they will be easy to convince.
You know what's funny about this situation is I wanted to do my novels as an "Open Source" author (having my writing notes available publicly, allowing derivative works with the CC license, etc) and *technically* looks like it should work. :)
Of course, calling a book series "open source" is a bit different than software, but my goals are the same. Let the fanfiction flow. lol
Sadly, I think the ship sailed on this when it was decided that ‘Open Source’ meant more than ‘source openly, legally, viewable’. We know that the public and especially the news media will redefine terms on a whim (see “Troll”), so it’s important for them to be resistant to misinterpretation.
Personally, I prefer the four freedoms over OSD. The OSD already reads like a license (and looks a bit like Apache), and could still have potential loopholes, because it looks at the license itself. The four freedoms look at what you can do with the program, and are therefore a lot less open to interpretation. They're also technology-agnostic, as there is nothing within them that specifically refers to software. Even the need to make the source, well, open, is merely a product of the freedoms, when applied to software, rather than an explicit requirement. It's about people, not product.
Could you explain what's the difference between open source and free/Libre software? If we asume, that open source doesn't just mean source available, I'm not really sure what's the difference here
In terms of requirements for licenses, none. It's branding, mostly - Open Source tries to market itself to be corporate friendly, Free Software does not and aligns itself against other things like DRM, etc...
Open source - what was said in the video
Free software - open source plus requirement that people who receive an application (as a binary or something else) also have access to the source code.
It's almost purely a difference in philosophy, "free software" defined by certain freedoms, the most fundamental of which is the right to use the software. "Open source" is defined by open access to the source code, in other words, people have the right to study the code, redistribute, and make derivative works. To make it simple, the difference is that free software is "pro-user", open source is "pro-developer". It's also important to note that the original idea of free software was "pro-developer" and "freedom 0" was added later, the drama actually started because Stallman and FSF believe in a secret 5th fundamental freedom: "you are not allowed to use nonfree software", while open source was explicitly made to get companies to start making free software without the ideological baggage of "free software".
@@ayaya-ayaya Not true, the FSF considers permissive aka non-copyleft licensed software to be Free Software, they just heavily recommend copyleft, specifically the (A)GPL.
the Open Source Initiative itself says that open source is the same as free software (they invented the term to appeal to corporations)
I'm starting to think Stallman is reaching Satoshi levels of recognition.
As in, they came along and showed their POV, some people listened, some people didn't care, some people ridiculed them, some people actually made efforts to carry their visions through the future (and were further proven right when chaos ensued around them, but didn't affect them since they kept to their principles)... and then out of nowhere a fucking jackass just materializes out of thin air, decides to hijack said vision and tries to force a new corrupted vision of their own which has nothing to do with the original one, and which sole purpose is to make themselves rich and/or powerful enough to control the planet.
The only conclusion I can take out of this is "humans are not trustworthy, never were and never will be".
Nope, never ever trust a human.
Great coverage. Point 1 of their restrictions is the really hard one. Point two is halfway problematic. I believe you could add a no-malware clause in an OSI license, specifically because the OSI definition doesn't trump the law, and maliciously distributing malware is illegal. And let's be honest, if someone wants to distribute malware, they don't care what the license says. But the restriction on advertising is a no-go for an Open Source license.
There is another way to handle this, in an Open Source way. Dual license the code, using AGPL for the public release, and use a permissive license like MIT internally. Make contributors do a license grant to that effect. No other company will be willing to touch the AGPL code, but regular users don't care.
Funny, since "Open Source" as a term was created to muddy the waters of "Free Software", AFAIK.
nah it was created
to appeal to corps and convince them to make their software freedomware
Stallman and the FSF made the term "free software" toxic and the GPL licenses are often radically different than the rest of these types of licenses so a new term was popularized.
IMO, if they say it's open source, that trumps any fine print in the license that disagrees with the common parlance meaning of open source. Given the many years of everyone knowing what the term open source means, and the precedent set with stuff like 3b1b's manim (that for years was on github with no license, but described by Grant as open source in his podcast, where he liked the idea of people being able to used the source code, and clearly understood what the term meant, even though he didn't clarify a license until years later).
if this is what they put their energies into I couldn't care less for their code
I actually did not know there was a difference between open source and source available.
I have to say that I am very happy about the discourse going on in the comments section. It's like philosophy and definitions are not entirely dead! I am a strong enjoyer of objectivity and mutual understanding! 😀
To be fair Lewis did say "trying to" not that Futo is trying very hard. It's close enough the user won't notice any differences and Futo would rely on the popularity of the open source phrase. Not saying that it's right but the decision to explain it the way he did makes sense.
okay, i was defensive at the beginning, but i agree with you. source available or source first is the correct way to call it
It is funny for me to see the first sentence of FUTO's open source definition is exactly opposite to Open Source Initiative's first sentence of their definition. Anyway, right now it seems that FUTO removed that definition and claimed that it was a parody. So... it was written intentionally in such way?
Sinc ethis involves Lewis Rossman, here's my response:
If a company were to say they supported people being able to repair their products, but that they could not pay someone more than the price of the components to fix it, would you call it "right to repair"?
You're against companies reusing existing terms, so why don't you hold your company to the same standards? And, if you're willing to mislead in this way, what other ways might you try to mislead?
That is a great analogy
Dan Brown? Like the Davinci code author? NO WAY :3
Because all these things has legal implications, people can't just redefine phrases without sorting out those legal implications as well.
But "open source" has never been "legally" defined, and for reasons.
People should really stop thinking that "open source" has a specific meaning, despite OSIs efforts, it really doesn't.
Legal definition would be another thing entirely but I am pretty sure the world we live in would be very different if what you want to say is true. I don't think so.
And also if by any chance Futo is trying to set some legal precedence, then Futo has committed a crime against open source far worse than Microsoft or Apple has ever did.
Free software, libre software and open source... all refer to the same licenses and the same software.
These definitions have been part of dictionaries and encyclopedias for decades. No other authority is necessary. Anyone creating confusion is ignorant or a demagogue.
The "as you wish" part of open source, kinda prevent you from adding the free of charge restrictions. But sure fair source, or chargeless source could be fine
I wonder what corporation FUTO is the front organization for.
3:44 no, leak does not change license, you still are not allowed to access this code.
4:57 so the only problem is wording? Maybe we need something like Modified Open Source, Almost Open Source etc. I would definitely restrict my software use by certain militaries of certain countries.
The name Open Source is misleading by itself. It has much more weight than just opening the source code.
Ulimately they should just call it "FUTO license (modification of open source)"
3:44 Yes that's my point, open source does not just mean access to the source code.
4:57 Keep watching, I describe the idea of Fair Code
Just call it self hosted and source available
Kind of hilarious of that guy considering he's about piracy: After all, what's the difference from Open Source, to a pirate, if you don't care about theft anyway. A pirate will still modify the code. It's a win for the pirates. Yeah, that erodes the Open Source definition. However, it also erodes Open Source [period] regardless of the term.
to play devils advocate, is there anything legally binding about the OSD? Theres nothing legally binding that says the term "Open Source" refers to the OSD. The specifics of "Open Source" has always been about the license, and yes the license does matter. A project developed under GPL must be treated differently than the MIT license or the Unlicense, for example. As long as these license terms are clear, included with the software, and enforced, this isnt a big issue. Sure, it may be more confusing, but like ask anyone what the specific terms of the GPL (and specific version) and i think you may find a similar level of confusion.
Yes, this is something I was going to bring up. Over the decades, there have been MULTIPLE different types of open source license, including the ones you mentioned, the BSD license, and plenty of other one-off licenses that had their own license terms. This is the first time I've ever heard anyone make the claim that there's only ONE true "open source" license. The idea of putting usage restrictions on the uses of source code is absolutely NOT a new idea. I've seen plenty of other open source projects that had terms like the ones mentioned here. I can't remember the name off the top of my head, but there was at least one major piece of software the specified that it wasn't allowed to be used to develop nuclear weapons, or something like that.
@@mattelder1971 There isn't ONE true "open source" license, but there is one true definition of what open source is, and there are many licenses that fit under it: GPL, MIT, Apache. There are maybe a couple hundred, although only a few really popular ones.
Also, I remember long ago the Java VM license said it couldn't be used in nuclear facilities. That may have been in the late 90s, before open source was a thing (though I think free software was already around). I'm pretty sure Oracle still makes its proprietary Java VM today, though without the anti-nuclear restriction, but there is at least one open source alternative.
@@NeilHaskins there isn’t “one true definition” of open source, there is only a single company’s definition of it. OSI is not an authority over language, and does not own the phrase “open source” in any way. There is nobody that can claim that there is a set definition for words when the FOSS community is a niche community of a niche community. Our existing definitions, with no legal backing, mean literally nothing.
@@Daktyl198 Just according to Wikipedia, "The Open Source Initiative's (OSI) definition is recognized by several governments internationally as the standard or de facto definition." The OSI doesn't "own the term", but they have provided the definition.
If it were a minor technicality, one could perhaps argue it should still fall within the umbrella, but this is like arguing that since no one owns the term "cheddar", you should be able to apply it to any cheese you wish.
@@NeilHaskins Just like all other language meaning is ultimately subject to the audiences understanding.
Weather a definition makes sense, is useful, or is the best definition makes sense to question, but that can never make a definition inherently "wrong" or "false". Definitions are just that: what you say something means to you/when you say it.
Things can only start to be wrong or false when you consider them in a context with a goal. You can criticize it, its implications, consistency with another definition, or clarity, but the definition itself is as valid as any other no matter how dumb it is.