1. 9
  1.  

  2. 10

    License naming is so misleading. The word “open” is now meaningless. Around christmas time a new LLM was released for code completion, with an “open” license the authors called “open source” that ends with a bunch of end-user restrictions which boil down to “don’t be evil”.

    Great. I’m sure the bad guys will take note of that.

    1. 5

      The word “open” is now meaningless

      Always has been. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Group

      1. 3

        Great. I’m sure the bad guys will take note of that.

        Locks keep honest people honest. That doesn’t mean they’re worthless though.

        1. 4

          I think it’s different, locks are real, they’re physical, they’re a deterrent. A thief will avoid a locked target if an unlocked target is more practical or reasonable to attack - but if they’re after something specific, they have to break or bypass the lock. If I’m after whatever your software does and it’s the (multivariate) best, there is nothing except words nobody reads stopping me. “Beware of dog” is a deterrent. “Use this software for evil and we will politely ask you to stop” is a joke.

          1. 1

            Or sue you. That’s an option too. I wouldn’t care for a license that puts unenforceable terms in it, but for the good guys, the concern of being sued is generally enough to keep them in line.

            1. 2

              Which means it’s a deterrent to those who would be evil in the public eye, nobody else.

        2. 2

          Yeah. I think the OSI really needs to enforce the trademark more, but it might be too late.

          1. 3

            According to Wikipedia quoting Bruce Perens, OSI doesn’t even have the money to fight copyright infringement and noncomplicance. That was never the point though really, the point was to earn money from a starting a certification cartel.

            (Thinking I might’ve misread? The term “open source” itself hasn’t been trademarked, or at least it wasn’t granted to the OSI.)

            1. 3

              This is likely because it cannot be trademarked as a generic phrase.

              Which is, by the way, exactly how I’ve always been using it, I don’t care if some organization decided to have its oen definition for that. I suspect I’m not alone.

            2. 3

              OSI doesn’t have a trademark on “open source”, they tried and rightly failed to acquire one.

              Moreover the term was in use before they existed, to refer to software that they were/are trying to deem as not “open source”…

          2. 4

            I have come to believe that engaging with empty legal formalisms is at best orthogonal to making interesting software, but it’s become the primary lens through which the self-organized software world sees the universe.

            1. 2

              kinda rich being on a microsoft website…