Last-modified: 2015-12-29 (火) 00:37:17 (601d)

オリジナルはAre SugarCRM, Socialtext, Zimbra, Scalix and others abusing the term open source

SugarCRM, Socialtext, Zimbra, Scalixその他は「オープンソース」という用語を悪用しているのか?

The next time you see the phrase "open source" used in association with some software, be advised that you'll need to take that claim with a grain of salt.

That's because beauty (what qualifies as open source) is now apparently in the eyes of the beholder rather than the eyes of the Open Source Initiative -- the supposed keeper of the official definition of "open source" and the consortium to which open source license authors typically turn to have their licenses ratified as adhering to that definition.

The result? A collection of new licenses (and software licensed under them) are turning up that claim to be open source licenses. But according to the OSI's official list of approved licenses, they are nothing of the sort.

Even worse, some of these licenses aren't up for consideration.

The discrepancy raises three important questions:

  • OSIの承認リストに入っていない場合にライセンス起草者はそれをオープンソースライセンスであると言えるのか?
  • ソフトウェア企業はこれらの未承認ライセンスによって許可されたソフトウェアをオープンソースソフトウェアと言ってよいのか?
  • これらについて断固とした態度を取れないこと、また(OSIは状況を正しく認識しているにも関わらず)何が行われているのかについて一般に公開しないなど、なぜOSIはそんなにも弱いのか?

What right do the authors of these licenses have to say that they are open source licenses when they are not on the OSI's approved list?What right do software companies have to say that software licensed under these unapproved licenses is open source software?Why is the OSI so weak that it can't put it's foot down, and keep the public informed of what's going on? (The OSI is very aware of the situation.)

この食い違いはまた、深刻な法的窮境を促進させることにも繋がる。 The discrepancy also creates a serious legal pickle moving forward (I'll get to that in a minute).

I've been sitting on this story since August because it's so big that I've had a tough time getting my head and text around it all. I've interviewed practically everyone involved too. There are so many sides to that I can't keep track of them. So, I've decided to eliminate a lot of the testimony and research and just report on the facts with some of my opinions so that the conversation about what should be done can begin. Thankfully, the people on all sides to this issue have agreed that they'd like to see the problems worked out.

Look around you. In today's world, we are surrounded by things that claim to be authentic that are not. Walk down any New York City street and you are likely to see popular brands like Nike, Rolex, and others getting completely ripped off by the sellers of unauthentic merchandise. Have you ever seen those blue and white dishes with images of the Dutch countryside on them (for example, a windmill). My wife is Dutch and one thing I learned from her is that you should turn those dishes over to make sure they are authentic Delft Blau. Everything else is a knock off. I never new that. Then again, what does it matter? As long as I like the dish, should I care if it's authentic or not?