FSF has the term ‘free software’, which is well defined as to what qualifies as free software. In fact, it predates the term ‘open source’. OSI created the ‘open source’ definition based on FSF’s model.
But like the term open source, there are those around with malicious vested interests who insist that these terms are generic and the publicly accepted strict definitions don’t apply. Their intention is to take advantage of ‘free software’ and ‘open source’ tags without making the necessary compromises.
Any new definitions will have the same problem. The only solution is to call out the above mentioned people for dishonesty and their attempts to take advantage of FOSS definitions.
I don’t think anyone can sue them, unless the terms ‘open source’ and ‘free software’ are trademarked. I doubt that they are. Any party can be sued for violation of licensing terms. But these definitions aren’t licenses by themselves either.
The FTC takes action against false advertising.
“Open Source” doesn’t have a singular legally relevant definition no matter what organizations claim otherwise, though.
But lots of false claims for products would be considered false advertising even if those attributes don’t have a legal definition.
If the source isn’t available at all, yeah. Which is why I brought up the FTC to begin with (since Google is in the US).
But I doubt they’d act if the license isn’t permissive enough.
so the fsf should make a new term and legally trademark it and enforce breaches? someone more knowledgable email them [email protected]
FSF has the term ‘free software’, which is well defined as to what qualifies as free software. In fact, it predates the term ‘open source’. OSI created the ‘open source’ definition based on FSF’s model.
But like the term open source, there are those around with malicious vested interests who insist that these terms are generic and the publicly accepted strict definitions don’t apply. Their intention is to take advantage of ‘free software’ and ‘open source’ tags without making the necessary compromises.
Any new definitions will have the same problem. The only solution is to call out the above mentioned people for dishonesty and their attempts to take advantage of FOSS definitions.
okay so who will sue them??
I don’t think anyone can sue them, unless the terms ‘open source’ and ‘free software’ are trademarked. I doubt that they are. Any party can be sued for violation of licensing terms. But these definitions aren’t licenses by themselves either.