next »

[OSLiving]

At the point of deciding to expand the OSLiving project, my intention was to open up the development of the archive and include user input. I set up these forums in the hope that visitors to the archive would get involved and that through collaboration we'd construct this archive from the bottom up establishing a peer review process as we went along. That wish has been granted and there has been some excellent debate with strong ideas and arguments put forth.

In a display of sheer passion, at times mixed with inevitable anger and frustration, the message has become quite clear: if the Open Source Living archive and community is going to live up to its 'Open Source' name then it should be bound by true OS rationale and all software displayed in the archive should adhere to the OSI guidelines.

From now on all software programs included in the OSLiving.com archives will be Open Source software only, meaning that each program meets the criteria and definition laid out by the Open Source Initiative (OSI). 

I will reprint the OSI definition of Open Source here below for the purposes of clarity. In terms of software licensing and ascertaining whether a particular program meets the OSI criteria in both content and licensing , we will call on the list of OSI approved licenses as our point of reference.

I am certain that in the future there will be debate on some of the finer points of licensing since even the OSI license list is not exhaustible and is expanding and accepting new licenses all the time. On those occasions we will put each query to debate and through the same process of peer review we will decide what's best for all.

As for the current list of OSLiving.com entries, as I have said previously in a separate thread, that list will be subject to scrutiny once we begin adding entries to the archive with its new CMS structure.

Although this only marks the beginning of this project, I would like to thank all of you who have contributed thus far and I hope you will continue to build with me on these ever solid foundations.

(Document Source)

Introduction

Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:

1. Free Redistribution

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

2. Source Code

The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.

3. Derived Works

The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code

The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.

5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

7. Distribution of License

The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.

8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product

The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution.

9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software

The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.

10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral

No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.

[JakobD]

Good call Andrew. I like the way this is developing. You debate and you make decisions on informed debate. That's how it should be. I know some people turn up and expect everything served up on a plate with a silver bow, but this project demonstrates there are other ways of going about building a website. It is actually quite a good learning experience to see all this in action.

I agree that abiding by OSI guidelines is the most sensible thing to do. It saves you a lot of work too, because everything has already been spelled out. Now you just have to go about enforcing the rules and stick to the criteria. I think you're on the right track. Keep up the good work. 

[Square Bottle]

I'm ecstatic that you made this decision! You've made a very wise decision, and I am genuinely impressed (and even a little bit surprised, in a good way) to see that you keep an open mind since that's such a rare quality.

Oh, this is such good news! I was really worried for a while! If you need help with anything (or feel like giving me the chance to put some more design work in my portfolio, ehehe), just let me know and it'll be my pleasure.

Keep up the excellent work!

[inf1ni]

@OSLiving: Nice, that was absolutely perfect. With excellent leadership like that, this place is definitely going to be very successful and long-lasting.

[sx66gns]

I agree.

[slef]

Will the archive be placed under an free and open source software licence?

Will Simple Machines Forum be replaced by forums run by free and open source software?  I feel it looks a bit strange to take a hard OSI line on the archives, then use such famously non-OSI forums.

[OSLiving]

Welcome to the forums Slef.

To address your first point, I can't say at this point whether the archive will be placed under an OSS license or not given that it is an archive as opposed to a software program. It is a matter that I have had in mind though, and something I intend to put to the OSI staff once the archive develops into its fuller form.

As to your second point, well thanks for pointing this out, it is definitely something to look into. But before going ahead with plans for forums software changes I want to clarify SMF's licensing.

[slef]

Hi and thanks for the welcome - will post intro once I get a little more time.

The archive is software, even if not a program. Some OSI licences work can cover more than just programs, but if you're in the UK, then there's database rights and stuff to worry about and I'm not sure whether OSI-approved ones are sufficient, so something like the Open Data Licence (I think that's the name... the Talis-backed one) may be a safer bet.

What's to clarify about SMF?  Click the copyright link at the bottom of your forum pages and it's spelt out: no redistribution allowed.

[OSLiving]

Right, I'm sure there is some sort of license or marker of OSS esteem that we can attribute to that archive. I will look into your suggestion of the Open Data License.

Part of the reason why SMF was chosen was simply out of convenience for this template design which seemed to match the main site quite well.

You see, at that point the whole project was literally in its second day. Nothing had been decided about the 'hard OSI line' as you put it, that's something that has transpired recently. What's happening is that we're now working through the loopholes that have arisen from very fast and unexpected project development. 

If we were to migrate to strictly OSI forums, we have to come up with a new design, which means finding someone to implement that, it also means shifting the forums user base which could be tricky. But as always I'm open to suggestions and if there's a real push towards this then yes, let's do it.

At the moment, the main focus is on getting the archive working with Wordpress and implementing all the functions to get that up to speed.

I'd like to hear other people's opinions on this too.

[Hatrist]

I agree that you should focus on the archive. At this point the forums aren't really important to the project.

[OSLiving]

@Hatrist: welcome also to the forums, good to have you here. Indeed we are pointing all attention to the archive, and I know what you mean when you say 'the forums aren't really important to the project' - the forums are not the most pressing development point at the moment - but I just want to make it clear to everyone that the forums are the community around the project and each member therefore is a very valuable participant in the future and success of OSLiving.

As far as I'm concerned this is all part of a collaborative ensemble effort, so I hold both the archive and the forums in very high esteem. I've noted Slef's point and I'm sure others will have opinions on this, and I will return to it once the archive has grown legs.

[derubermensch]

There's no contradiction in adhering to the OSI for archive submissions and the choice of forum management software. The choice for the OSI resolves disputes about licensing, the choice for simple machines is a pratical one.  There's no FSF-esque ideologue here.

[khurt]

From now on all software programs included in the OSLiving.com archives will be Open Source software only, meaning that each program meets the criteria and definition laid out by the Open Source Initiative (OSI). 

Thank you taking the opinions of your community into consideration and making what I consider to be an informed decision.  I look forward to great things from this project.

[slef]

There's no contradiction in adhering to the OSI for archive submissions and the choice of forum management software. The choice for the OSI resolves disputes about licensing, the choice for simple machines is a pratical one.  There's no FSF-esque ideologue here.

It doesn't look like the choice for Simple Machines was made when aware of all the information and maybe the decision should be reviewed in light of the OSI decision - that's the main thing I was trying to point out. I currently manage an installation of Simple Machines (in cooperation with its previous manager) and I find it a bit irritating not to be allowed to fix bugs in it myself.  Why not use sustainable, open source software?  It's not a contradiction, but it is a little undermining to say there's all that great stuff out there, but not use it to power the service.

As for "FSF-esque ideologue"... well, using FSF as an insult in such a misleading way just suggests that you don't know much about FSF (particularly their strange position on web applications).  In fact, I think it would be better not to use them as an insult at all - bashing FSF for unrelated things is not a good way to support OSI.  Criticise them if you want, but don't bash.

[derubermensch]

It doesn't look like the choice for Simple Machines was made when aware of all the information and maybe the decision should be reviewed in light of the OSI decision - that's the main thing I was trying to point out. I currently manage an installation of Simple Machines (in cooperation with its previous manager) and I find it a bit irritating not to be allowed to fix bugs in it myself.  Why not use sustainable, open source software?  It's not a contradiction, but it is a little undermining to say there's all that great stuff out there, but not use it to power the service.

I think whats mainly at issue here is our disparate attitudes towards open source software.  For myself, the FOSS is about choice, my ability to purge my computing of proprietary hindrances where they become a problem rather than proprietary software as such.  That you've come across several bugs in SMF that cannot be repaired because you are not a developer for SMF may not be the experience of others, and if so, warrants the continued usage of the package.  Reconsidering the forum software in light of the decision for OSI, thus, seems unnecessary: Open Source shouldn't be an obligation; I see no freedom in that.

As for "FSF-esque ideologue"... well, using FSF as an insult in such a misleading way just suggests that you don't know much about FSF (particularly their strange position on web applications).  In fact, I think it would be better not to use them as an insult at all - bashing FSF for unrelated things is not a good way to support OSI.  Criticise them if you want, but don't bash.

The use of '-esque' mitigates some of this, as it designates variation on the prefixed term rather than the term itself.  Whatever the FSF may be, there are those who run around in needless, possibly uninformed zealotry, thus the use of the term 'ideologue'; my language was more measured than it appeared.  Besides this, you'll find in my Digg history (whatever that's worth) my defense of their main goal as outlined by Stallman in a well-known essay publicly available: the protection of end-user rights and liberties in an age and upon a terrain which affords new grounds for their circumvention and denial.  At bottom, I have no blind animosity towards the FSF.