Is it just me or is passing off things that aren't FOSS as FOSS a much bigger thing lately than it was previously.
Don't get me wrong. I remember Microsoft's "shared source" thing from back in the day. So I know it's not a new thing per se. But it still seems like it's suddenly a bigger problem than it was previously.
LLaMa, the large language model, is billed by Meta as "Open Source", but isn't.
I just learned today about "Grayjay," a video streaming service client app created by Louis Rossmann. Various aticles out there are billing it as "Open Source" or "FOSS". It's not. Grayjay's license doesn't allow commercial redistribution or derivative works. Its source code is available to the general public, but that's far from sufficient to qualify as "Open Source." (That article even claims "GrayJay is an open-source app, which means that users are free to alter it to meet their specific needs," but Grayjay's license grants no license to create modified versions at all.) FUTO, the parent project of Grayjay pledges on its site that "All FUTO-funded projects are expected to be open-source or develop a plan to eventually become so." I hope that means that they'll be making Grayjay properly Open Source at some point. (Maybe once it's sufficiently mature/tested?) But I worry that they're just conflating "source available" and "Open Source."
I've also seen some sentiment around that "whatever, doesn't matter if it doesn't match the OSI's definition of Open Source. Source available is just as good and OSI doesn't get a monopoly on the term 'Open Source' anyway and you're being pedantic for refusing to use the term 'Open Source' for this program that won't let you use it commercially or make modifications."
It just makes me nervous. I don't want to see these terms muddied. If that ultimately happens and these terms end up not really being meaningful/helpful, maybe the next best thing is to only speak in terms of concrete license names. We all know the GPL, MIT, BSD, Apache, Mozilla, etc kind of licenses are unambiguously FOSS licenses in the strictest sense of the term. If a piece of software is under something that doesn't have a specific name, then the best we'd be able to do is just read it and see if it matches the OSI definition or Free Software definition.
Until then, I guess I'll keep doing my best to tell folks when something's called FOSS that isn't FOSS. I'm not sure what else to do about this issue, really.
Well, I do think it's still quite useful to have separate terms for the movements. I'd say it's probably safe to say that "Free Software advocates" believe that all software should be FLOSS whereas "Open Source advocates" think it's fine for FLOSS and proprietary software to coexist in the whole software ecosystem.
That's an interesting question. The term "Free Software" is kindof tied up in connections to Richard Stallman. (Say what you will about that, but having a well-known personality at the head of a movement, even if it has disadvantages, does have upsides.) And the dude is the avatar of pedantism. And I think to anyone with even a passing familiarity with Stallman, that comes through when you use the term "Free Software." To the point that it's hard to imagine the term used to mean something other than the four freedoms.
Meanwhile, I imagine a lot of people, when they use the term "Open Source" don't think of any particular person. Eric Raymond and Bruce Parens are much less known than Stallman.
"Open Source" is a term that's also much closer to the mainstream. Folks who say "Open Source" are "normies". If someone uses the term "Free Software" you can likely expect an hour long lecture from them on why the term "GNU Plus Linux" is better than "GNU Slash Linux".
I think maybe when companies started "open washing" (a term I just learned) efforts, "Open Source" was a much easier target for dilution than "Free Software." Because again, when you think of the term "Free Software," you think of pedantic Stallman listing off the easy-to-enumerate four freedoms. When you think of the term "Open Source," you probably think of a Firefox logo and not Raymond or Parens and not really the ten specific points in the OSI definition.
So in a way, I wonder if "Open Source" hasn't served as a bit of a shield for "Free Software". Because "Open Source" was the easier target and "Free Software" is a much more niche concept. (And also arguably because Linus/Linux is more associated with Open Source than Free Software.)
Historically, if the term "Open Source" was never coined, I imagine people would have tried to dilute the term "Free Software". I suspect they may have had less success, but not no success. And in that case, the term "Free Software" would be eroded today in ways it's not given that "Open Source" served as a buffer protecting "Free Software."
Ah. Well, I could see people who use the term "Open Source" loosely also using "FOSS" loosely more so than I could see them using "Free Software" loosely. But I suppose if someone usrs the term "FOSS", there's... I guess a stronger case that they shouldn't be using the term loosely than if they're using the term "Open Source."
I'm not saying I'm ok with using the term "Open Source" loosely. But I did admit there may be a possibility we need to start thinking in terms of choosing our battles in the OP.