undefined | Better HN

0 pointslolinder2y ago0 comments

Again, though—you're fighting for the moral integrity of a term that was explicitly coined to try to buck the moralizing that was associated with the Free Software movement and make the new concept of Open Source more appealing to corporations.

The BSL isn't the first sign of the bastardization of the ideal behind Linux. The bastardization started as soon as the OSI decided that they needed to appeal to corporations, and in condemning the BSL the OSI is just following the same business-friendly playbook they've held to all along.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that the OSI provided a watered-down version of free software that got us to where we are today. I just disapprove of the moralizing that surrounds them when they were explicitly founded on pragmatism.

0 comments

palata2y ago

> condemning the BSL

Are they "condemning" the BSL by saying "it is bad, don't use it", or are they just saying "BSL is not open source"?

Because my understanding is that BSL is not open source. Rather it is a commitment of becoming open source (GPLv2) at a point later (maximum 4 years). So BSL is effectively source available until GPLv2 is added. Which does not make BSL open source: GPLv2 is.

lolinderOP2y ago

> Are they "condemning" the BSL by saying "it is bad, don't use it", or are they just saying "BSL is not open source"?

Fair enough, others condemn it on the grounds that the OSI says its not open source.

> Because my understanding is that BSL is not open source. Rather it is a commitment of becoming open source (GPLv2) at a point later (maximum 4 years). So BSL is effectively source available until GPLv2 is added. Which does not make BSL open source: GPLv2 is.

See TFA and my comments above. A substantial number of people believe that we need to reevaluate what counts as "open source" in the post-cloud era, which I see as a completely reasonable discussion to have given that the term "open source" was specifically coined to be a pragmatic and business-focused alternative to "free software".

palata2y ago

IMO it's all a moot point. If people condemn the BSL because it's not truly open source as per the current definition of open source, changing the definition will not change their opinion. So yeah, changing the definition can trick a few people into believing that BSL is open source, and then maybe we will invent a new word to define what we currently call "open source". But that sounds ridiculous. Just invent a word for "open source + BSL" if it really matters to you...

It's not a philosophical question at this point, it's really just a definition.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointslolinder2y ago0 comments

0 comments

palata2y ago

> condemning the BSL

Are they "condemning" the BSL by saying "it is bad, don't use it", or are they just saying "BSL is not open source"?

lolinderOP2y ago

> Are they "condemning" the BSL by saying "it is bad, don't use it", or are they just saying "BSL is not open source"?

Fair enough, others condemn it on the grounds that the OSI says its not open source.

palata2y ago

It's not a philosophical question at this point, it's really just a definition.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse