
The crusade against open-source abuse - sandGorgon
https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/29/the-crusade-against-open-source-abuse/
======
hyperman1
This stuck out to me:

    
    
      OSI, which has somehow anointed itself as the body that will “decide” whether a license is open source
    

Isn't 'open source software' a trademark owned by OSI, and the actual words
"open source" invented by the people who started OSI? Which would make the
above a tautology. Before OSI there was "free software" but no "open source
software", and the meanings subtly differ.

I can be wrong here, and I don't directly see a clear answer on the OSI site
site

~~~
metheus
That is incorrect.

[https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-
source.p...](https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php)

------
type0
I hope they will rename "Commons Clause license" to "Santa Claus license"
before Christmas.

------
striking
Not another one of these proprietary-source-masquerading-as-free apologist
articles. At least it's less tone deaf than the last one
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17951235](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17951235)),
but it's still rather tone deaf, accusing the OSI's declaration that the
license isn't open source of being "myopic" and calling them policy wonks for
like, just getting in the way of business, bro.

If the OSI is as incredibly irrelevant as the author claims, why even try and
work with them? If you believe they're just "policy wonks" and have no other
effect, what gives?

Maybe this guy has a point somewhere but I can't help but get distracted by
the fact that people who think the way I do are being talked down to.

