all 4 comments

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

This is a very good video (except that he keeps repeating that he is unbiased while being anything but). Here's my take:

Dictionaries control the meanings of words and phrases too. So long as the definition doesn't change, I don't see anything wrong with people having an authoritative source. It avoids people messing with it, until "open source" and "free software" become useless terms used only for marketing.

But there is more than one dictionary, I hear you cry! Well, there is more than one organisation agreeing on the definition of open source. Only one enforcing it, but anyone can challenge those enforcements.

The Open Source definition (not to be confused with the free software definition), by the way, is as follows:

The Open Source Definition


Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:

1. Free Redistribution

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

2. Source Code

The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost, preferably downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.

3. Derived Works

The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code

The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.

5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

7. Distribution of License

The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.

8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product

The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution.

9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software

The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.

10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral

No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.

[–]Gangster 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I like Lunduke.

I think a certain wing of the movement gets wayyyy too caught up on the minutiæ of the terminology. If you watch Stallman's recent lectures, his main point is to emphasise the distinctions between 'open-source' and 'free'.

FFS, focus on the real enemy here: GAFAM and spy agencies!!! Know what battle you're fighting! While you were debating the distinction between 'open-source' and 'free', a corporation added spyware to every new car. Prioritise!

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)


I had to look it up.

The Big Four is a name used to describe the four multinational technology companies Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple. The Big Four are sometimes referred to as GAFA, an acronym for Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple. The term Big Five is sometimes used to include Microsoft, another major technology company. ~

I also like FANG = Facebook Amazon Netscape Google.

Open-source sites like GitHub are owned by big players and they get the benefits of all that free and open source stuff too.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

SJW Thought Police for open source