thanks for comment. This is interesting, because in part you were really having a good reason to request this change in the home page. However, part of my criticism is that other changes must be necessary. But in order for such changes to be made, everyone must vote or be aware of the implications it may bring.
But I never said I was right or wrong, nor did I say or claim that you were right or wrong. From the beginning, I asked what your concerns were. Also, I asked if there was any suggestions on one or more changes that could be good or bad about what we can agree or disagree.
Also, I said what points I thought you were right and what was wrong, and also brought points to which I suspected it was right or wrong, so you could also guide me better.
I have a very good justification, because I wrote the word “open” and not “open source”. The justification is that I was blocked for 4 hours here by the Baserow community. This happened due to the high volume of editions I was doing during the conversation here. Therefore, the word “open source” was not edited. That is, I had forgotten to correct the word “open” for the word “open source”. I really didn’t see what I had written before publishing here.
Anyway - really, you’re right. And excuse, for the lack of observation when writing.
I didn’t say exactly that: “lack of legal ownership of a term means there is no “need” or place for defining a term.”
I just said that your concern is caused by the lack of legal propriety of the term. Whereas, legal ownership of the term would mean ensuring that everyone has greater clarity and understanding of what it means. The correct meaning would be clear without further definition, and everyone would attribute the same meaning. Please, see this: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/open-source
In terms of etymology, the Cambridge dictionary does not mention "any open source organization such as FSF(Free Software Foundation), GNU(GNU’s not Unix) or OSD(Open Source Definition)… as owners of the term “open source”… . Therefore, “there is no official definition”, at least in the Cambridge dictionary, of what the word “open source” means.
Furthermore, the Cambridge dictionary itself does not mention or include the four freedoms that the GNU philosophy proposes, nor does it mention the GPL license, or any licenses approved in the OSD (Open Source Definition).
The definitions of the term “open source” that I found were these:
[1] “Open-source software is free to use, and the original program can be changed by anyone.”
[2] “used to refer to software, etc. that is free to use and can be studied or improved by anyone because it is based on a code that anyone can use:”
Although there is no “etymology” that mentions “open source organizations (there are several organizations that claim the term or may claim the term)”. Licenses approved by OSD(Open Source Definition) may say that they invented the term “open source”. Just as independent organizations that develop software can also say that the word: “open source” is maintained by them. This is not to say that organizations like FSF (Free Software Foundation), OSD(Open Source Definition), GNU are good or bad, just that they are not in the dictionary or are mentioned.
Perhaps the word “open source” – could include other meanings such as “open hardware”, “open marketing or open advertising”, “open knowledge”, “socialism”, “communism”, “anarchism”, “liberalism”, etc. Depending on the political view in which the software is maintained and by those who are maintained; and depending on the terms of service (TOS) where the software is also maintained or managed.
Maybe in this case, the “open source code” is what is licensed, which does not include an additional service term - because in this case it would be against the definition of OSD(Open Source Definition). That’s why I said that changing Baserow’s home page wouldn’t make sense, it’s like adding an additional new term that everyone already knows what it means.
Argument: Therefore, without legal aspect, someone can use the term “open source” for anything. Although I agree with your argument that there are organizations that do not need legal recognition to use the word “open source”. However, this creates “a problem”, because anyone can say that something is “open source” without really being “open source”. An example of misuse of the word “open source” can be used wrong for marketing in one or more companies. I must emphasize that this, however, is resolved by the available license terms. In other words, concern for marketing or advertising is set aside, if we look only at the software license. Although someone may say the contrary, and that this concern is important.
Our conclusion is that: “there is no “legal”, “social” or “etymological” aspect of the word open source”, but that does not mean that the lack of legal property * of a term means that there is no “need” or place to define a term" But if there were legal ownership of the term, it would mean ensuring that everyone has greater clarity and understanding of what it means. The correct meaning would be clear without further definition and everyone would attribute the same meaning.
Note: This information I took from this dictionary on this date and time: 14/09/2022 - 00h22 (Someone may then include or change this description of the dictionary to include or add those open source organizations known or not). I speak of this, that the information I have is this, but it can change.
But why is an organization like OSD (Open Source Definition), FSF (Free Software Foundation), GNU not included or cited in the Cambridge dictionary?
This is true ±, as companies or people can badly use the term “open source” for marketing and advertising, as I said earlier and you also confirmed this fact. I said, however, that this would also confirm my previous argument that it is not necessary to have a 100% precise term for open code.
Because legal recognition is made by the partnership between developers, companies and the community to which one or more resources are desired to be implemented. Although any change should be voted by everyone or by the majority before any side decision of the company or the user.
Even simple or complex changes should be voted and received by all.
Using your argument here: “The definition of “license, marketing, open source” does not include “anything that has any need”. People can and do and have good reason to assert all sorts of things in communication and in society without legal recognition.”
But this would conflict with the argument that the OSD (Open Source Definition) organization has the correct understanding of the software license. Why, on the contrary, you defined concerns – which can be inside or outside the context of the software.
Just as it contradicts your concern with marketing to actually be good for open source, because you can worry about any marketing. As there is no legal recognition of the open source or who that produces “open source marketing”.
Moreover, it would not be necessary to have a legal recognition of the term “open source” for those who contribute to the open source; or for anyone in communication(you don’t have to make a legal claim to any legal entity under the term “open source”).
This confirms my thesis that marketing and advertising around open source are irrelevant or not very important. Because most cases - people like I or anyone can talk about concepts to which there is no legal recognition on the subject.
You may think that the “open core” business model is bad, but it wouldn’t be the same for me. Therefore, marketing is not good or bad, but just something subjective. Argument to which I mentioned earlier before any change even small on the home page or future changes.
And although your concerns are real in the ethical sense of the word, I would argue that they are not real in the legal sense of the word. Because as you say: “People can and do and have good reason to assert all sorts of things in communication and in society without legal recognition.”
In other words, we are not worried about the legal implications of something, because no one will complain about whether the code is really open or not. Because there is no legal recognition of the term, although the term has an ethical concern for those who define and say it. And even this “ethical concern with the term open source” does not change the fact that marketing is good or bad, just that it is subjective to the target audience.
Therefore, in this case, people cannot complain about whether companies’ marketing is good or bad, because, as I have read and concluded here, there is no legal application that allows us to say that such marketing is in fact wrong or right.
This does not mean that the company does not care about the term open source in the ethical sense of the word, but that by only worrying about the ethical fact of the word, it forgets the legal aspect. And in this case, something ethical does not always lead to what should be law.
And in this case, taking into account that your concern is correct in an ethical sense, your analogy in relation to organic does not apply, as something organic presupposes that it is in fact organic, and there are those who prove this. In the case of open source, there is no legal recognition of who claims that open source is in fact open or not. It really is an ethical concern for anyone who says or asserts this.
In other words, we accept that the term open source means anything that people identify with. Or we accept the term open source only for what is defined by the license. In the first case, your concern is meaningless, because it’s something anyone can ponder about whether open source advertising or marketing is acceptable or not. In relation to this fact, there are companies that do not do marketing and advertising because they think that this violates the idea of neutrality with open source. In the second case, your concern would not be relevant because it does not meet what is defined in the software license. “Then it’s your concern, not mine.” And in this case, either one of them is not so wrong or is less right.
I would assume you were wrong if you assumed the company did wrong or incorrect marketing. Because your definition of marketing may not be the same as the company. I would also assume that you might be wrong if you have a concern outside of what the open source software license assumes. And I would say that it is wrong, if we use the “a posteriori fallacy”, to say that because some companies do something bad today or tomorrow, or in the future – we should, in that case, do this or that.
For this good reason, I said that everyone must agree in advance to vote if changes may occur. However, they made the update without actually consulting everyone here. For this same reason I think the marketing is wrong, not because there was just a correction of the word on the home page, it’s just that the majority of people didn’t vote on whether this small change was necessary.
Here comes our disagreement, licenses like the GPL, even though they are correct in the sense of approval by the OSD (Open Source Definition), are wrong. If you considered some of the BSD arguments about what the software license can and cannot do, the GPL software license would not be considered open source. A software license cannot, for example, prevent relicensing or future licensing or license revocation. For this good reason, many suspect that GPL software license approval is not very certain.
There are cases in which the software license was considered not open source, and then there was a new understanding on the subject. Why is there no understanding that the GPL software license is not open source for OSD (Open Source Definition)?
I think maybe, because that would conflict with the GNU philosophy and also contrary to the copyleft movement. Or even against the organization FSF (Free Software Foundation).
The same goes with “open source marketing”, which I am against what you believe in, even though you tell me about the benefits of it. Because for me, a technology must be accessible to everyone in accordance with the license stipulations, and not be an exaggerated and bureaucratic concern. It is the same as Bitwarden, although it is licensed under the GPL software license and has an ethical concern for its users. Resources are left aside due to the bureaucratic regime in which it finds itself.
That’s why he said that his concern could in fact lead Baserow to be a company that “appears to be concerned with open source”, but lose the sense that people like the company the way it is.
Does this point of view make sense?
thank for comment here.
This is exactly this point that I defend. This does not mean that open source organizations are not important or relevant. Even because, I have always participated in all or much of the open software community: Mozilla Firefox, Baserow etc.
My general point is this: One thing to define the “software license” and another is to claim the term “open source”. For example, let’s say that if you are talking about the kernel, usually people say something like “linux”. On the other hand, if you are talking about linux distribution, usually people can say, “gnu/linux”, “linux” too.
Conclusion: The general point is that one thing is to say ‘the software license’ and another is to talk about ‘philosophy’, ‘service term’ or ‘business model’. Also, the term may change accordingly with your perspective. For example, just as for GNU philosophy the correct term would be: “GNU/Linux”, for other people it is just “linux”. Another example, just as for GNU philosophy the correct term would be: “free software”, for other people it is just “open source”. This may include in this regard - something specifically related to the license.
But people are not saying the same thing, they are talking in the opposite direction. This is the problem contained in what I call it: “Programming Language and Software”. For example, writing a ‘software’ is different from “formalizing a programming language” that can produce software. Similarly, it is different, you “formalize a law” and another is the “responsibility for which people are in accordance with any law.”
For the same reason, I would think that GNU’s philosophy was not a philosophy, but a legal aspect of the word “open source”. So that no company use the term inappropriately. And within this legal aspect, it could have licenses approved by OSD (open source definition).
But in my opinion, this would be bad for companies or communities that can claim the term “open source”.
That’s what I said earlier, but without a legal aspect, anyone or business can say that it is “open source”, so there is the problem of bad marketing about the word “open source”.
Sorry. But I did not say that companies were good or bad, nor what models of business were good or bad. I didn’t say you were right or wrong. In fact, my suggestion was to open this topic for voting, to include new suggestions for improvement.
I said we should add the change to the home page (although I didn’t agree to this because such a change wouldn’t be very necessary, for several good reasons).
Just as you do not consider the company as malicious, I do not consider this company as malicious either. The difference is that you see an lock-in and you worry about the future direction of the product.
However, I argued that any lock-in someone can do, anyone can continue. Also, I said that the concern of future direction of the product is not certain or likely. From the Buddhist point of view, it is not possible to predict the future; Therefore, we must focus on the present time and try to solve the problems we want to solve.
Does the software license like GPL not violate OSD (open source definition)? In the sense that it says that software cannot price?
Please, see this:
[1] “The GPL can present a real problem for those wishing to commercialize and profit from software. For example, the GPL adds to the difficulty a graduate student will have in directly forming a company to commercialize his research results, or the difficulty a student will have in joining a company on the assumption that a promising research project will be commercialized.”
[2] “A less publicized and unintended use of the GPL is that it is very favorable to large companies that want to undercut software companies. In other words, the GPL is well suited for use as a marketing weapon, potentially reducing overall economic benefit and contributing to monopolistic behavior.”
[3] the GNU position in saying “freedom, not price” - for many is to say that there is no capitalism in open software at least for GNU
Also… please, see this:
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.”
From the point of view of developer Andrew Zuo, the GPL should not be considered as an “open source”. I’m talking about a quote that I read in the text of the Medium site: “The GPL is the license that many pieces of free software use. It is known as a ‘parasitic’, oh sorry ‘copyleft’, license because if you integrate your software with the GPL your code must also be licensed under the GPL.”
Why is GPL software license still “open source”, even with these conceptual problems that are contrary to OSD (Open Source Definition)?
This is true, and I agree with you.
What I said is in accordance with the definition of the dictionary: “Irrelevant means not related to the subject at hand.” - If you create a great technology, “it’s not relevant marketing or advertising.”
Since if you worry about technology, you may not give the same relevance to marketing and advertising. There are several technologies that are known and have not used any marketing or advertising, I could cite for example that the “unlicensed” license.
As I said, this is one of the cases where marketing and advertising are not so relevant or irrelevant. In addition, there are reports of people who find marketing and advertising surrounding the bad coding.
My central point is: there are good and bad marketing and advertising. And there is marketing and advertising in some cases that is not so relevant or irrelevant. If you are a programmer, you may not want or do not like advertising or marketing.
Adding a “value or price” to the open source is an interesting and very controversial topic.
“GPL runs counter to everything capitalism stands for.”
“That’s the point (or at least one of them). Though I personally don’t care if it is GPL or not, as someone interested in perhaps using this OS for commercial purposes at some point it’s not being GPL is a slight plus for me.”
“However, one key point of the GPL is to create a commons (of software, hardware, protocols, etc.) that can’t be exploited for gain by capitalists, that can’t be exploited for economic rent, that can’t be laden down with copyrights and patents. A system that is actually, truly free (as in freedom). Which is important to understand if you want to be intellectually honest.”
What I mean in general is that there are people who say licenses like GPL are not capitalists. Therefore, some ask why the software must have a price if everything is 100% open. What would be the incentive to contribute a company if all resources are 100% open?
).