opensource.net Dead Since Middle of Summer, opensource.org (OSI) Still Leaderless
The OSI has been in serious trouble this year, not just because of election-related backlash (which is pretty much all the media bothered to cover). We're meant to think that without the OSI nobody will enforce or protect the brand "Open Source"; but that falsely assumes that the OSI actually did this.
opensource.net is still pretty much dead, the person who said the OSI would look after it "resigned" (or got pushed out) 2 months ago, and right now it's not clear what OSI does except give talks at All Things Open, then write blog posts about those talks.
"I was digging around," told us a reader, "and I was thinking about it you know..."
"...and really these people [OSI] are not our stewards and haven’t been for a long time."
"The fact of the matter is that the open source definition was derived from the Debian free software guidelines, right…"
"Well, there is, from what I could find a clause, allowing anyone to use the Debian and free software guidelines..."
"Bruce [Perens] actually says he hopes others will adopt the contract. So that being said it does not have a license to it, but in the more current version it added to let people know it came from the Debian free software guidelines so that being said."
"The OSD is a derivative Of a document where Bruce made it public domain. Right [...] I mean it’s a stretch, but anyone could now take the OSD and create a derivative. Then we could have some actual stewards."
"I’m game if someone else is! Fork OSD."
"I don’t know it was just an idea because this is getting ridiculous with all the OSI drama."
At the moment the brand "Open Source" is misused so heavily that we have considered adding a new category to our Daily Links, focusing a lot less on "Open" and more on software freedom as a concept.
"Open Source" is, in some sense, "yesterday's brand". █