The Fall of the Open Source Initiative (OSI): Microsoft-Sponsored OSI is Probably Not Even the Real Steward of the Open Source Definition, It's More Like an Identity Thief at This Point (Like "FSFE", a Microsoft-Sponsored Imposter of FSF)
Background: Leak: FSF/FSFE Trademark Dispute (FSF Demanding That FSFE Should Change the Organisation's Name)
In the introductory part, part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, and part 7 (plus addenda [1, 2]) we gave some background information and relayed perfectly legitimate questions (or doubts) about the OSI's credibility, authority, claims etc. Over a decade ago we had an amicable relationship with the OSI's leadership. We corresponded and they even sent us information/tips. That all began to change in more recent years because IBM and GAFAM took over. Years ago Microsoft took over almost absolutely. It's all in the finances. Follow the money.
It's very important to tell apart the old (or original) OSI and what it is now. It's not even led by the same people; the founders are gone; both of them left. The name and logo are the same; the mission is not.
As we said last night "transparency is imperative now" and it looks like yesterday the OSI already figured out it'd better say something (for the first time in weeks!).
About a day ago Ariel Jolo or the OSI was trying to grab/borrow/misuse the credibility of the UN (based on some blurb earlier this week) to make itself seem international rather than GAFAM (US) front. Of course the OSI is the latter. It seems like a shallow exercise at openwashing in the form of "Press Releases" (see below).
Pure PR (Press Release). Content-free waffle.
So let's carry on and speak about what OSI tycoons would rather not discuss or let anyone else discuss (they habitually censor/libel critics [1, 2] and even ban insiders who 'dare' say the truth).
Let's revisit formality, but not the bylaws this time.
Open source definition (OSD, usually with all letters capitalised) aside, there's the FSD (for Free Software) and Debian's original, as formulated by Bruce Perens, back then a leader of the project (after the founder, Ian, had passed the baton).
"I was digging around," an informed source told us, "and I was thinking about it, you know, and really [...] these people are not our stewards and haven’t been for a long time."
The source was referring to the OSI. This source had been involved in this domain for decades, even before the OSI existed.
"The fact of the matter is that the open source definition was derived from the Debian free software guidelines," the source recalls, "right… well, there is, from what I could find, a clause allowing anyone to use the Debian and free software guidelines (E-mail regarding contract) [and] 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," said the source, so "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."
Here's the page in question (Debian already violates this contract by silencing people who made Debian to "hide problems").
"I don’t know it was just an idea," the source said, "because this is getting ridiculous with all the OSI drama."
As we'll show later, many people (even inside OSI) are very angry at the OSI right now. We'll get to that by month's end.
The OSI is perfectly aware of all this anger, worrying it'll sort of "explode" at any time. █