Openwashing

Openwashing

Postby Wuzzy » 22 Jan 2020, 22:22

Is the act of “openwashing”, i.e. you claim your program is “open source” or “free software” but it actually isn't (according to the Open Source Definition by OSI or Free Software Definition by FSF), legal?

Is it legal when a company does it? Or would it count as false advertisement?

Of course, the answer depends on the country, so if you know the answer, please specify the country, thanks. :heart:
User avatar
Wuzzy
 
Posts: 989
Joined: 28 May 2012, 23:13

Re: Openwashing

Postby Julius » 23 Jan 2020, 22:55

In the EU you could probably sue for false advertisement, but I don't think a legal definition for these terms exists yet, so it would be up to the judge how loose the terms can be applied. If blatanly false, I think such a case could have a good chance of succeeding, but IANAL. In cases of "shared source" it would very much depend on the technical understanding of the judge, I guess.
User avatar
Julius
Community Moderator
 
Posts: 3297
Joined: 06 Dec 2009, 14:02

Re: Openwashing

Postby freemedia2018 » 24 Jan 2020, 00:58

The #openwashing tag on the fediverse is probably the big key to this.

What's going on is that compliance with the OSD was never required by vendors, only by licenses. Culturally, the line of "open" is being pushed farther towards non-free.

By the strictest definition (the FSD for free and the OSD for open-- which incidentally is based on the Debian Free Software Guidelines, written by OSI co-founder and 2nd Debian Project Leader Bruce Perens) the latest license to appear like it will gain OSI approval is the CAL license.

Where is this going? The term "Open" is being used increasingly by things that are not actually OSD-compliant. That's the meaning of #openwashing and there are plenty of examples. You might find some here: http:/techrights.org/category/openwashing

Apart from co-founding OSI, Perens has left in protest not once, but twice-- the first only one year after it was founded: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1 ... 01641.html citing that open source "has overshadowed free software" (and that it never should have) and that the term open was already being misused, even 20 years ago.

He recently resigned (from the OSI board) again, citing familiar reasons.

He also tweeted late last year that there was a plan by some people at OSI to end Stallman's career, but he never supported it. This tweet came up not long after Stallman's resignation on Sept. 16th.

OSI tried to trademark "Open Source" decades ago and failed. As it becomes more generic, the term can be legally abused in any way people want. That's probably the goal of openwashing, but we are already there. Also note that Perens had complaints about this 20 years ago (same link.)

I was an Open Source supporter, before OSI was even a decade old. Like Perens and OSI, I left in protest because I felt that Open Source rewrote history to steal credit for too much of what the FSF deserves more credit for.

And I don't like when people lie to me while asking for donations, whether they can legally get away with it or not. I've preferred "free software" ever since. No matter how much Phipps says they're the same thing-- I consider one way more honest. Way more honest.

With that said, this wave of corruption and erosion of principles isn't affecting Open Source alone. That's because those responsible have moved from their Open Source "base" and onto Free Software's turf. That's where the war is happening now, at the FSF and FSFE, as we speak.

I've spent the past 7 months writing about this regularly, so if this seems a little over the top-- it's not. This is the real world we live in. Microsoft (AND IBM, AND Google) are making a lot of progress moving into our jurisdiction and sticking their flags in. It's only fair to let people know. If this interests you, there is a lot more to say.

OpenTelemetry should bother everybody-- It's a Microsoft+Google project. They're supposed to be enemies. And systemd is owned by IBM while being developed on Microsoft servers-- that's an IBM+Microsoft project (so was OS/2 and Windows NT, they collaborated on over a billion dollars worth of research.)

The only thing that is likely being violated from a legal standpoint is the mission of OSI. But organisations like OSI can do that for decades, no problem. Their stakeholders aren't going to do anything, and they won't stray far enough to lose their 501c corporation.
freemedia2018
 

Re: Openwashing

Postby Lyberta » 24 Jan 2020, 16:05

freemedia2018 {l Wrote}:Wall of text


Thank you so much for saying this. I knew I wasn't the only one who was seeing this corruption and direct assault on freedom via social engineering and moving the Overton Window towards very little freedom at all.

I feel like we should start the "Second Wave" movement that is built on idea of decentralization and anonymity so that we can't be bought.
Lyberta
 
Posts: 765
Joined: 19 Jun 2013, 10:45

Re: Openwashing

Postby freemedia2018 » 24 Jan 2020, 18:19

Lyberta {l Wrote}:I feel like we should start the "Second Wave" movement that is built on idea of decentralization and anonymity so that we can't be bought.


That's where the freedom lab idea I keep going on about factors in. It allows everyone to start exactly where they are, but it pushes everybody towards freedom and keeps the goal of all software being free software. I think Open Source abandoned that very early: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1 ... 01641.html

I started as an open source proponent. That was more than 10 years ago, I didn't like the way I felt it was rewriting history. The sale of Github to Microsoft is one of the best examples, IMO, of the direction they have taken.
freemedia2018
 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest