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.

  • wiki_me@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    1 year ago

    Best you can do is accuse something of being open washing, or correct people by saying that it does not fit the OSI definition which is widely accepted (it’s based on debian guidelines) and the software is at best “partially open source”.

    Having a github page with a list of problematic projects and licenses could be useful.

      • ZILtoid1991@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        ClosedAL

        I’m from the generation that used to have sound cards, and I’m very sad about what Creative did to the industry…

    • TootSweet@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oh shit! “Open washing” is a term I never knew I needed in my lexicon until now.

      And yes. A running list of such projects would be awesome to have. I migrated all my projects to Gitlab when Microsoft bought Github (in retrospect, I wish I’d gone to Codeberg) but I’d love to see a project that collected examples like that in one place. I could probably be persuaded to start/maintain it. (As long as it’s not on Github. Lol.)

      • wiki_me@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        That might be useful if someone will want to learn if a particular project is not really open source, and raise awareness to the issue of open washing, if it will get enough links it might appear on search results raising even more awareness to the issue.

        You could always start it, ask for positive feed back saying it will motivate you and validate that the efforts you are doing are useful, you could later abandon it and someone else might take it and continue to maintaining it.

    • ImpossibilityBox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Can we get a term like this for AI. I’m so goddam sick and tired of everything being called AI that clearly and obviously isn’t.

      We developed a system that looks for red and when it sees red it KNoOOoOAwwWWss that it is seeing red and does stuff. It’s a super effective, ground breaking, world shaping, paradigm changing AI system. Give us money please.