undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbusterarm4y ago0 comments

They determined the guidelines of what constitutes being Open Source.

Absolutely they should control the term. Just look at all of the companies out there with "source-available" licenses masquerading as Open Source. Neo4j themselves here uses "Open Source" in all of their marketing materials and should be just as guilty as this fork of false advertising.

0 comments

6 comments · 3 top-level

kube-system4y ago· 2 in thread

1. “Open source” as a term predates the OSI

2. There are organizations other than OSI which have their own opinions on what they consider a “valid” open source license.

3. Some licenses are functionally open source but not approved by OSI because of their limited use. Furthermore, public domain works aren’t licensed at all.

4. OSI has no trademark on “open source”.

OSI’s opinion is only as good as other people agree with it.

prepend4y ago

> There are organizations other than OSI which have their own opinions on what they consider a “valid” open source license.

What other organizations have credible claims?

I’ve only heard of companies that have created non-open licenses and are trying to redefine the term (eg, open core, etc)

kube-system4y ago

The organizations that you think are credible, are credible. The term is not legally protected.

Personally, when Subway calls their sandwiches "good", I think they are actually making non-good sandwiches, and they're trying to redefine the term.

Both "good" and "open source" are descriptive terms that are subjective. The OSI recognizes this themselves:

> "Open Source" is not and cannot become a trademark.

> there is virtually no chance that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office would register the mark "open source"; the mark is too descriptive

https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...

1 more reply

hn_version_00234y ago· 1 in thread

Hard disagreement from me. The courts get to decide, not some random organization that clearly has an interest in promoting themselves.

prepend4y ago

OSI is not random and, while not perfect, are a pretty good steward of the concept. They’re a non-profit with a clear goal and broad membership.

Not sure who else would be better.

phendrenad24y ago

OSI doesn't need to control what licenses qualify as "open source" for neo4j to be sued for false advertising.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

6 comments · 3 top-level

kube-system4y ago· 2 in thread

1. “Open source” as a term predates the OSI

2. There are organizations other than OSI which have their own opinions on what they consider a “valid” open source license.

3. Some licenses are functionally open source but not approved by OSI because of their limited use. Furthermore, public domain works aren’t licensed at all.

4. OSI has no trademark on “open source”.

OSI’s opinion is only as good as other people agree with it.

prepend4y ago

> There are organizations other than OSI which have their own opinions on what they consider a “valid” open source license.

What other organizations have credible claims?

I’ve only heard of companies that have created non-open licenses and are trying to redefine the term (eg, open core, etc)

kube-system4y ago

The organizations that you think are credible, are credible. The term is not legally protected.

Personally, when Subway calls their sandwiches "good", I think they are actually making non-good sandwiches, and they're trying to redefine the term.

Both "good" and "open source" are descriptive terms that are subjective. The OSI recognizes this themselves:

> "Open Source" is not and cannot become a trademark.

> there is virtually no chance that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office would register the mark "open source"; the mark is too descriptive

https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...

1 more reply

hn_version_00234y ago· 1 in thread

Hard disagreement from me. The courts get to decide, not some random organization that clearly has an interest in promoting themselves.

prepend4y ago

OSI is not random and, while not perfect, are a pretty good steward of the concept. They’re a non-profit with a clear goal and broad membership.

Not sure who else would be better.

phendrenad24y ago

OSI doesn't need to control what licenses qualify as "open source" for neo4j to be sued for false advertising.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse