commit: 6753bbd79a90264b5d89451f982c25c161283456
parent 19e0da0adf9cfab1c4751221d60aef6af1aed92e
Author: Drew DeVault <sir@cmpwn.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2022 11:54:57 +0100
typo fix
Diffstat:
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/content/blog/Open-source-is-defined-by-the-OSD.gmi b/content/blog/Open-source-is-defined-by-the-OSD.gmi
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ So too are the attempts to re-brand “open source” in a manner which is more
Critics of the OSD frequently point out that the OSI failed to register a trademark on the term “open source”, but a trademark is not necessary for this argument to hold. Language is defined by its usage, and the OSD is the popular usage of the term “open source”, without relying on the trademark system. The existence of a trademark on a specific term is not required for language which misuses that term to be dishonest.
-As language is defined by its usage, some may argue that they are as entitled as anyone else to put forward an alternative usage. This is how language evolves. They are not wrong, though I might suggest that their alternative usage of “open source” requires a substantial leap in understanding which might not be as agreeable to those who don’t stand to benefit financially from that leap. Even so, I argue that the mainstream definition of open source, that forwarded by the OSI, is a useful term that is worth preserving in its current form. It is useful to quickly understand the essential values and rights associated with a piece of software as easily as stating that it is “open source”. I am not prepared to accept a new definition which removes or reduces important rights in service if your private financial interests.
+As language is defined by its usage, some may argue that they are as entitled as anyone else to put forward an alternative usage. This is how language evolves. They are not wrong, though I might suggest that their alternative usage of “open source” requires a substantial leap in understanding which might not be as agreeable to those who don’t stand to benefit financially from that leap. Even so, I argue that the mainstream definition of open source, that forwarded by the OSI, is a useful term that is worth preserving in its current form. It is useful to quickly understand the essential values and rights associated with a piece of software as easily as stating that it is “open source”. I am not prepared to accept a new definition which removes or reduces important rights in service of your private financial interests.
The mainstream usage of “open source” under the OSD is also, in my opinion, morally just. You may feel a special relationship with the projects you start and invest into, and a sense of ownership with them, but they are not rightfully yours once you receive outside contributions. The benefit of open source is in the ability for the community to contribute directly to its improvements — and once they do, the project is the sum of your efforts and the efforts of the community. Thus, is it not right that the right to commercial exploitation of the software is shared with that community? In the absence of a CLA,² contributors retain their copyright as well, and the software is legally jointly owned by the sum of its contributors. And beyond copyright, the success of the software is the sum of its code along with the community who learns about and deploys it, offers each other support, writes blog posts and books about it, sells consulting services for it, and together helps to popularize it. If you wish to access all of these benefits of the open source model, you must play by the open source rules.
diff --git a/content/blog/Open-source-is-defined-by-the-OSD.md b/content/blog/Open-source-is-defined-by-the-OSD.md
@@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ OSI, is a *useful* term that is worth preserving in its current form. It is
useful to quickly understand the essential values and rights associated with a
piece of software as easily as stating that it is "open source". I am not
prepared to accept a new definition which removes or reduces important rights in
-service if your private financial interests.
+service of your private financial interests.
The mainstream usage of "open source" under the OSD is also, in my opinion,
morally just. You may feel a special relationship with the projects you start
