Fake Open Source Is a Problem

A growing number of companies are abandoning open source in favour of "source available" licences that protect their commercial interests. Unfortunately, not all are presenting the changes clearly; using ambiguous or misleading phrases that make their proprietary software sound like it's still open source. Others still are straight up claiming to be open source, despite the inclusion of restrictions that directly contradict the commonly accepted definition of open source. Some call this "openwashing". Some call it "faxupen source". I call it "fake". 💬 Follow Me   / andrewmrquinn   📽️ Related Video: Open Source Licence Types    • Open Source Licence Types   📽️ Related Video: Elasticsearch Vs OpenSearch    • Search War: Elasticsearch Vs OpenSearch   📄 Open Source Definition https://opensource.org/osd 📄 Server Side Public License (SSPL) https://www.mongodb.com/legal/licensi... 📄 Llama Community Licence & Acceptable Use Policy https://llama.meta.com/llama3/license/ https://llama.meta.com/llama3/use-pol... 🌐 OSI Approved Licences https://opensource.org/licenses 🌐 Open Source Initiative: Claims to Authority https://opensource.org/authority https://opensource.org/blog/osd_affir... Video timestamps: 0:00 - Introduction 1:04 - Meta & Llama 1:26 - Defining Open Source 2:28 - Meta & Llama (cont.) 3:50 - MongoDB & the SSPL 5:43 - Elastic & the SSPL 6:54 - Graylog & the SSPL 10:14 - The SSPL Is Not Open Source 16:34 - My Advice #OpenSource #Openwashing #FauxpenSource