Recent searches
Search options
Administered by:
The thing that gets me about the docusign palaver with the board agreements is that if the OSI were more in tune with the community they would have known that folks like NLNet dogfood opensource.
NLNet dogfood it to the point that when I signed my agreement with them, they were able to recommend 2 options to sign our agreement with them. At least one of which I think they funded.
For the OSI to not only use Proprietary software and mandate it shows just how much they don't represent FOSS.
@onepict@chaos.social another day, another user discovers that the OSI is a business front without much care for FOSS in reality lol
@froge some folks have always known. But I don't blame folks for wanting to make it better.
Especially because things like the Open Source Definition tend to matter in places like public funding for software development.
My project releases stuff under the GPL. Which we chose, but it's still a condition of our NGI funding to use an OSI approved licence.
@downey@floss.social
@downey @onepict @froge meh, what is wrong with the four software freedoms? #FreeSoftware
@amszmidt @downey @froge Nothing, yet my EU funding mandates my projects code is licensed under an OSI approved Licence. Not the FSF.
My project does release it's code under the GPL. Which is OSI approved.
The OSI main job was to safeguard that definition. It screwed that pooch with OSAID.
Our program offices in our Legislatures have Open Source Program Offices. So we still need an organisation to safeguard that definition, since that's what our Governments choose to interact with.