logo

drewdevault.com

[mirror] blog and personal website of Drew DeVault git clone https://hacktivis.me/git/mirror/drewdevault.com.git

Open-source-is-defined-by-the-OSD.md (8258B)


  1. ---
  2. title: Open Source is defined by the OSI's Open Source Definition
  3. date: 2022-03-01
  4. ---
  5. The [Open Source Initiative] (OSI) publishes a document called the [Open Source
  6. Definition] (OSD), which defines the term "open source". However, there is a
  7. small minority of viewpoints within the software community which wishes that
  8. this were not so. The most concerning among them are those who wish open source
  9. was more commercially favorable to *themselves*, and themselves alone, such as
  10. companies like Elastic.
  11. [Open Source Initiative]: https://opensource.org
  12. [Open Source Definition]: https://opensource.org/osd
  13. I disagree with this perspective, and I'd like take a few minutes today to
  14. explore several of the most common arguments in favor of this view, and explain
  15. why I don't agree with them. One of the most frustrating complications in this
  16. discussion is the context of [motivated reasoning] ([relevant xkcd]): most
  17. people arguing in favor of an unorthodox definition of "open source" have a
  18. vested interest in their alternative view.[^bias] This makes it difficult to
  19. presume good faith. For example, say someone wants to portray their software as
  20. open source even if it prohibits commercial use by third parties, which would
  21. normally disqualify it as such. Their interpretation serves to re-enforce their
  22. commercialization plans, providing a direct financial incentive not only for
  23. them to promote this definition of "open source", but also for them to convince
  24. you that their interpretation is valid.
  25. [motivated reasoning]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning
  26. [relevant xkcd]: https://xkcd.com/2167
  27. [^bias]: Am I similarly biased? I also make my living from open source software,
  28. but I take special care to place the community's interests above my own. I
  29. advocate for open source and free software principles in all software,
  30. including software I don't personally use or benefit from, and in my own
  31. software I don't ask contributors to sign a CLA — keeping the copyrights
  32. collectively held by the community at large, and limiting my access to
  33. commercialization to the same rules of open source that are granted to all
  34. contributors to and users of the software I use, write, and contribute to.
  35. I find this argument to be fundamentally dishonest. Let me illustrate this with
  36. an analogy. Consider [PostgreSQL]. If I were to develop a new program called
  37. Postgres which was similar to PostgreSQL, but different in some important ways
  38. — let's say it's a proprietary, paid, hosted database service — that
  39. would be problematic. The industry understands that "Postgres" refers to the
  40. popular open source database engine, and by re-using their name I am diluting
  41. the brand of Postgres. It can be inferred that my reasoning for this comes from
  42. the desire to utilize their brand power for personal commercial gain. The terms
  43. "Postgres" and "PostgreSQL" are trademarked, but even if they were not, this
  44. approach would be dishonest and ethically wrong.
  45. [PostgreSQL]: https://www.postgresql.org
  46. So too are the attempts to re-brand "open source" in a manner which is more
  47. commercially exploitable for an individual person or organization equally
  48. dishonest. The industry has an orthodox understanding of the meaning of "open
  49. source", i.e. that defined by the Open Source Initiative, which is generally
  50. well-understood through the proliferation of software licenses which are
  51. compatible with the OSD. When a project describes itself as "open source",
  52. this is a useful short-hand for understanding that the project adheres to a
  53. specific set of values and offers a specific set of rights to its users and
  54. contributors. When those rights are denied or limited, the OSD no longer applies
  55. and thus neither does the term "open source". To disregard this in the interests
  56. of a financial incentive is dishonest, much like I would be dishonest for
  57. selling "cakes" and fulfilling orders with used car tires with "cake" written on
  58. them instead.
  59. Critics of the OSD frequently point out that the OSI failed to register a
  60. trademark on the term "open source", but a trademark is not necessary for this
  61. argument to hold. Language is defined by its usage, and the OSD is the popular
  62. usage of the term "open source", without relying on the trademark system. The
  63. existence of a trademark on a specific term is not required for language which
  64. misuses that term to be dishonest.
  65. As language is defined by its usage, some may argue that they are as entitled as
  66. anyone else to put forward an alternative usage. This is how language evolves.
  67. They are not wrong, though I might suggest that their alternative usage of "open
  68. source" requires a substantial leap in understanding which might not be as
  69. agreeable to those who don't stand to benefit financially from that leap. Even
  70. so, I argue that the mainstream definition of open source, that forwarded by the
  71. OSI, is a *useful* term that is worth preserving in its current form. It is
  72. useful to quickly understand the essential values and rights associated with a
  73. piece of software as easily as stating that it is "open source". I am not
  74. prepared to accept a new definition which removes or reduces important rights in
  75. service of your private financial interests.
  76. The mainstream usage of "open source" under the OSD is also, in my opinion,
  77. morally just. You may feel a special relationship with the projects you start
  78. and invest into, and a sense of ownership with them, but they are not rightfully
  79. yours once you receive outside contributions. The benefit of open source is in
  80. the ability for the community to contribute directly to its improvements —
  81. and once they do, the project is the sum of your efforts *and* the efforts of
  82. the community. Thus, is it not right that the right to commercial exploitation
  83. of the software is shared with that community? In the absence of a CLA,[^cla]
  84. contributors retain their copyright as well, and the software is legally jointly
  85. owned by the sum of its contributors. And beyond copyright, the success of the
  86. software is the sum of its code along with the community who learns about and
  87. deploys it, offers each other support, writes blog posts and books about it,
  88. sells consulting services for it, and together helps to popularize it. If you
  89. wish to access all of these benefits of the open source model, you must play by
  90. the open source rules.
  91. [^cla]: Such CLAs are also unjust in my view. Tools like the [Developer
  92. Certificate of Origin] are better for meeting the need to establish the
  93. legitimate copyright of open source software without denying rights to its
  94. community.
  95. [Developer Certificate of Origin]: https://developercertificate.org
  96. It's not surprising that this would become a matter of contention among certain
  97. groups within the industry. Open source is not just eating the world, but *has
  98. eaten* the world. Almost all software developed today includes substantial open
  99. source components. The open source brand is very strong, and there are many
  100. interests who would like to leverage that brand without meeting its obligations.
  101. But the constraints of the open source definition are *important*, played a
  102. critical role in the ascension of open source in the software market, and worth
  103. preserving into the future.
  104. That's not to say that there isn't room for competing ideologies. If you feel
  105. that the open source model does not work for you, then that's a valid opinion to
  106. hold. I only ask that you market your alternative model honestly by using a
  107. different name for it. Software for which the source code is available, but
  108. which does not meet the requirements of the open source definition, is
  109. rightfully called "source available". If you want a sexier brand for it, make
  110. one! "Open core" is also popular, though not exactly the same. Your movement has
  111. as much right to success as the open source movement, but you need to earn that
  112. success independently of the open source movement. Perhaps someday your
  113. alternative model will supplant open source! I wish you the best of luck in this
  114. endeavour.
  115. *A previous version of this blog post announced that I had submitted my
  116. candidacy for the OSI board. Due to unforseen circumstances, I will be
  117. postponing my candidacy until the next election. I apologise for the confusion.*