pylapp

Yeah, reach the FSF like explained in previous comments. Or maybe contact some attorney if it matters because you may face expensive litigations… Big companies are not friendly. Or maybe contact the SFC (https://sfconservancy.org/).

Maybe Futo should move to “post open source” like “open core” principles.

Today majority of standards rely on definition accepted by a majority of people since decades, i.e. the open source definition by the OSI (https://opensource.org/osd), the free / libre definition of the FSF (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html), and the principles of ethical source by the OES (https://ethicalsource.dev/what-we-believe/). Trying to apply new definitions is very hazardous, will induce lack of consistency and may make people more confused.

However, like the OES did for ethical source licences, defining a new group of ideas / licences with associated values seems to be more interesting, like few years ago with “open core”, and also “copyfarleft” and “copyjustright”.

In a nutshell, why changing the rules of the game instead of creating a new game? 🙂

Interesting. Thank you for sharing, didn’t know openhub!

Pure jerks, clowns and morons. Trying to redefine definition of open source is crazy, insane and irrelevant.

Why did you say Write Freely seems to be dead? According to their GitHub organisation repositories, the backend has a release tagged 4 months ago and the iOS app 3 months ago.

Thank you for sharing, for your information the original publication date was in 2018.

In software ecosystem indeed there is an issue about the word “free” which can mean “free of charge” or “libre”, that is the reason why the term FOSS should be replaced by FLOSS.

In this very software world, the OSI defined “open source” by 10 conditions. The FSF defined also since eons the term “free / libre” by 4 liberties. These two things are the base of trust and understanding for every one.

For several years capitalist companies try to redefine these words because cannot bear to see that communities dislike or hate how they change the licences of their products (e.g. Elastic with BSL, Mongo with SSPL, Terraform with BSL too). They try to get excuse and fake reasons to be allowed to change the definitions but they are not legit at all.

About your example for a “free and anticapitalist” license, it cannot by “free” because one of the four liberties of the “free” definition is not filled.

However this is an interesting point because there is a new family of licences which appeared several years ago: the ethical licenses brought by the Organisation for Ethical Source (https://ethicalsource.dev/) which define the term « ethical source » by 7 principles. You can get more details about the anti-capitalist license here: https://anticapitalist.software/).

In few words, we must keep the OSI, FSF and OES definitions for open source, free and ethical source words because there are meanings, history, facts and fights behind. If they are disturbing for people or if people disagree, they have to create something else. Not change the definition for pure rebranding.

There is one definition of free in FLOSS. The FSF definition.