Dana Blankenhorn has an interesting article out titled “Phony open source to be a 2010 trend“.
One of the themes I’ve been writing about is how popular just the term “Open Source” has become, and how as part of that popularity the term has diverged of the philosophy. Mr. Blankenhorn’s article is along the same lines, worth reading, but one particular question he raised struck me:
Who knows, maybe O’Reilly will do a book on this, with some strange beastie on the cover. What would an OSINO look like? (Open Source In Name Only.)
Is there any better answer than a wolf in sheep’s clothing? (Again, I beg for the help of a skilled graphic artist!)
That’s what fauxpen source is after all: an attempt to shroud restrictive software in the appearance of open-ness. We see it when so-called “open” projects are under exclusive “covenants” and “promises” – is that really “Open Source”? How about some restrictive trademark / logo / name / credit requirements? Or perhaps the source is available, but does not allow any community contributions?
It seems to be that some people consider it a “win” if the absolute minimum standard to claim the term “Open Source” is met, despite any additional restrictions/requirements. As if the term itself is what is important.
That’s one strong advantage in terminology “Free Software” has over “Open Source”. “Open Source” strongly implies that the open-ness of the source is the end goal – the only thing that matters. But “Free Software” shows that it is Freedom that matters, and that the open-ness of the source only matters as it is a pre-condition for Freedom.
What we are seeing now with the emphasis on “Open Source” is parties finding ways to open the source, yet restrict its use through other methods. Fetishizing “Open Source” as a holy grail is absolutely missing the point.
Recent Comments