commit: 7b7527a1d3f1640c3a58d7afe2ebd73adc21d0bf
parent 00512150f4083b60a1e2b61077e43a417813c7f1
Author: Drew DeVault <sir@cmpwn.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2022 09:09:01 +0200
open source, again
Diffstat:
1 file changed, 94 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/content/blog/Open-source-matters.md b/content/blog/Open-source-matters.md
@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
+---
+title: The phrase "open source" (still) matters
+date: 2022-09-16
+---
+
+In 1988, "Resin Identification Codes" where introduced by the plastic industry.
+These look exactly like the recycling symbol ♺, which is not trademarked or
+regulated, except that a number is enclosed within the triangle. These symbols
+simply identify what kind of plastic was used. The vast majority of plastic is
+non-recyclable, but has one of these symbols on it to suggest otherwise. This is
+a deceptive business practice which exploits the consumer's understanding of the
+recycling symbol to trick them into buying more plastic products.
+
+The meaning of the term "open source" is broadly understood to be defined by the
+Open Source Initiative's [Open Source Definition](https://opensource.org/osd),
+the "OSD". Under this model, open source has enjoyed a tremendous amount of
+success, such that virtually all software written today incorporates open source
+components.
+
+The main advantage of open source, to which much of this success can be
+attributed, is that it is a product of many hands. In addition to the work of
+its original authors, open source projects generally accept code contributions
+from anyone who would offer them. They also enjoy numerous indirect benefits,
+through the large community of Linux distros which package and ship the
+software, or people who write docs or books or blog posts about it, or the many
+open source dependencies it is likely built on top of.
+
+Under this model, the success of an open source project is not entirely
+attributable to its publisher, but to both the publisher and the community which
+exists around the software. The software does not belong to its publisher, but
+to its community. I mean this not only in a moral sense, but also in a legal
+sense: every contributor to an open source project retains their copyright and
+the project's ownership is held collectively between its community of
+contributors.[^cla]
+
+[^cla]: Except when a CLA is involved. A CLA is an explicit promise that the
+ steward of an open source project will pull the rug out later and make the
+ project proprietary. *Never sign a CLA*. Don't ask contributors to sign one,
+ either: consider the [DCO][dco] instead.
+
+[dco]: https://drewdevault.com/2021/04/12/DCO.html
+
+The OSD takes this into account when laying out the conditions for
+commercialization of the software. An argument for exclusive commercialization
+of software by its publishers can be made when the software is the result of
+investments from that publisher alone, but this is not so for open source.
+Because it is the product of its community as a whole, the community enjoys the
+right to commercialize it, without limitation. This is a fundamental,
+non-negotiable part of the open source definition.
+
+However, we often see the odd company or organization trying to forward an
+unorthodox definition of the "open source". Generally, their argument goes
+something like this: "open" is just an adjective, and "source" comes from
+"source code", so "open source" just means source code you can read, right?
+
+This argument is wrong,[^wrong] but it usually conceals the speaker's real
+motivations: they want a commercial monopoly over their project.[^nondisc] Their
+real reason is "I should be able to make money from open source, but you
+shouldn't". An argument for an unorthodox definition of "open source" from this
+perspective is a form of [motivated reasoning][motivated].
+
+[^wrong]: This footnote used to explain why this argument is incorrect, but
+ after five paragraphs I decided to save it for another time, like when the
+ peanut gallery on Hacker News makes some form of this argument in the comments
+ on this article.
+[^nondisc]: Sometimes these arguments have more to do with the
+ non-discrimination clause of the OSD. I have a
+ [different set of arguments](https://lists.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/public-inbox/%3CC125C6RFZ9JQ.2PYJMAKMD2F8A%40homura%3E)
+ for this situation.
+
+[motivated]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning
+
+Those making this argument have good reason to believe that they will enjoy more
+business success if they get away with it. The open source brand is incredibly
+strong — one of the most successful brands in the entire software
+industry. Leveraging that brand will drive interest to their project, especially
+if, on the surface, it looks like it fits the bill (generally by being <abbr
+title="The appropriate term for software whose source code is available to the public, but which does not otherwise meet the Open Source Definition">source available</abbr>).
+
+When you get down to it, this behavior is dishonest and anti-social. It
+leverages the brand of open source, whose success has been dependent on the OSD
+and whose brand value is associated with the user's understanding of open
+source, but does not provide the same rights. The deception is motivated by
+selfish reasons: to withhold those rights from the user for their own exclusive
+use. This is wrong.
+
+You can publish software under any terms that you wish, with or without
+commercial rights, with or without source code, whatever — it's your
+right. However, if it's not open source, it's wrong to call it open source.
+There are better terms — "source available", "[fair code][fair]", etc. If
+you describe your project appropriately, whatever the license may be, then I
+wish you nothing but success.
+
+[fair]: https://faircode.io/
