This seems like FUD to me.
While OSI may have coined the term "open source" as a reaction to the word "free software" in the past, it did not invent the idea of free software. Rather, the term open source was a reaction to the desire for commerical enterprises to avoid saying software was free.
Now it rejects the same argument from developers of software to make a profit, which I find ironic relative to the founding mission.
Previously, Commons Clause was called out in aggressive terms in twitter, rather than seeking to understand the underlying rationale.
Some of my thoughts:
https://medium.com/@michaeldehaan/why-open-source-needs-new-...
I am left to believe OSI views this as a useful political time to self-market, or otherwise sees licenses like this - which intend to fairly compensate software developers - as something that does not promote the interests of those that primarily fund it.
I'm sorry, but we don't need a gatekeeper anymore.
While OSI may have coined the term "open source" as a reaction to the word "free software" in the past, it did not invent the idea of free software. Rather, the term open source was a reaction to the desire for commerical enterprises to avoid saying software was free.
Now it rejects the same argument from developers of software to make a profit, which I find ironic relative to the founding mission.
Previously, Commons Clause was called out in aggressive terms in twitter, rather than seeking to understand the underlying rationale.
Some of my thoughts:
https://medium.com/@michaeldehaan/why-open-source-needs-new-...
I am left to believe OSI views this as a useful political time to self-market, or otherwise sees licenses like this - which intend to fairly compensate software developers - as something that does not promote the interests of those that primarily fund it.
I'm sorry, but we don't need a gatekeeper anymore.