The free version is licensed under Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International, which is not an OSI-approved license:
It's not software, so it's fine to use that license. But v4 was open source under SIL OFL 1.1.
I'm not a legal expert, but this seems to be source-available with a generous free license. Hence, open-washing? 🤔
Meta will federate for the same reason that Google pays Mozilla tens of millions a year to keep Firefox alive. But that comparison only takes us so far, because in this case, it's more like Google dishing out the money only on the condition that Firefox disables ad-blocking and sends telemetry to Google.
So, we have multiple, recent and ongoing indicators. We have motives and strategies which fit a type. Every signal beams in the same direction, and there are none which contradict it. Meta is coming.
And the ActivityPub protocol and major fediverse development projects are firmly under the control of facilitators who are smoothing the way. This is a blog post by one of the primary Mastodon developers, with a proposal to add in backend hooks for the algorithmic surveillance and telemetry collection demanded by the Facebook Mafia.
A recent paper by @Mer__edith , @davidthewid and Sarah Myers West discusses the openwashing ploy utilized by Meta and other tech giants, in which "AI" and other exploitative technologies are obfuscated by a thin veneer of democratization.
@pluralistic riffs further on the openwashing concept: https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/18/openwashing/#you-keep-using-that-word-i-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means
Meta currently has a big problem with regulators - particularly in the EU - demanding more interoperability from their social media operations. ActivityPub federation with their throwaway Threads side-project buys them a low-cost, low-risk figleaf. Perhaps we can term this particular variant "interop-washing"?
Now to the question of motives. This has also been called into question. Why, after an early July Threads launch with over 100 million "signups" (all of which carried over from existing Instagram accounts), would Meta care about our puny little nothing of a network?
According to one analytics firm, that usage number had dwindled to 576,000 by early August.
Suddenly the fedi, with an estimated DAU of 1.8 million, doesn't seem so puny. But beyond any question of numbers, there is a crystal clear benefit to federation, one which would fit a well-worn pattern for the Zuckerberg entity - openwashing.
@anderseknert Looks like the replies to your post were deleted, since they certainly didn't look good for him!
The only one who claims that MongoDB/SSPL is open source is a single person who is #openwashing proprietary software using his website and his GitHub repo with 1 star. Just ignore it.
"In the Big Tech internet, it's freedom for them, openness for us."
"A smart capitalist is someone who, sensing the outrage at a world run by 150 old white guys in boardrooms, proposes replacing half of them with women, queers, and people of color. This is a superficial maneuver, sure, but it's an incredibly effective one."
Cory Doctorow says Open AI is not "open," nor "artificial," and certainly not "intelligent."
"As far as I know, Michelle Thorn, Mozilla’s Director of the Webmaker Program, was the first to define #openwashing in 2009: “Openwashing: to spin a product or company as open, although it is not."
It has happened before, and it will happen again.
What's open and what's not in "open" #AI?
"We find that the terms ‘open’ and ‘open source’ are used in confusing and diverse ways, often constituting more aspiration or marketing than technical descriptor, and frequently blending concepts from both #OpenSource software and #OpenScience. This complicates an already complex landscape, in which there is currently no agreed on definition of ‘open’ in the context of AI."
A smart capitalist is someone who, sensing outrage at a world run by 150 old white guys in boardrooms, proposes replacing half of them with women, queers, and people of color. This is a superficial maneuver, sure, but it's an incredibly effective one.
In "Open (For Business): Big Tech, Concentrated Power, and the Political Economy of Open AI," a new working paper, @Mer__edith, @davidthewid and #SarahBMyers document a new kind of -washing: #openwashing:
The voice of OSI obviously counts, as the organization stewards the open source definition.
The piece states that OSI asked Meta to fix its description of the Llama 2 release, and avoid #openwashing. After a month, it does not seem like it did much. Meta still presents itself as a champion of open AI, thinning down the standard in the process.
@fsfe "Die Frage stellt sich: Wird hier viel Geld aus Steuergeldern für ein proprietäres Produkt verbrannt?" ... "Wir haben Fragen direkt an das Ministerium gestellt, in der Hoffnung, Licht in das Dunkel zu bringen. Wir haben uns bewusst an das Ministerium gewandt, weil wir bei #dataport keinen guten Willen gesehen haben, zur Aufklärung beizutragen. Wir sehen das Vorgehen von Dataport als sehr problematisch an."
Toller Vortrag, Danke!
#phoenix #opensource #linux #openwashing
@isotopp #openwashing #phoenix
Genau meine Rede, Danke, @kris! Ich rede mir dazu seit Jahren den Mund fusselig und hab mir viele "Freunde" gemacht. Innerhalb und außerhalb der OSS-Community. Zuletzt mit dem Phoenix-Dataport-Artikel im Linux-Magazin. Ein Lehrstück in Sachen OSS.
BTW: Das Thema NDA haste vergessen. Ganz neu: OSS Code kriegt der Anwender erst wenn er NDA unterschreibt. Und nur wenn er on-premise machen will/muss. Kannste Dir nicht ausdenken.
Did someone say open-washing?
"Codecov is now open source"
'The Business Source License (this document, or the "License") is not an Open Source license. However, the Licensed Work will eventually be made available under an Open Source License, as stated in this License.'
@raikas thank you for speaking up! #openwashing is a slap in the face of all honest opensource contributors.
on top of that, i read a lot of advertising which may even be factually correct, but suggests that saas was #opensource . like when #aws boasts about their "support for opensource" or #honeycomb here: https://www.honeycomb.io/open-source-observability
neither services are open source, neither grant the four freedoms of free software https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
:alert: Software startup Skiff.com falsely advertises it's email client as #OpenSource
I currently recommend avoiding using, and/or contributing to their products, until they fix their false advertising.
They are actually licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA (Non commercial, share-a-like), which is not an open source license (as commercial use allowed is a requirement for open source).
When confronted on Github, the issue was shortly closed, saying that the libraries used for the apps are open source, and that they have no plan for allowing commercial use for their apps.
I pointed out that open source requires commercial use, and I got this reply from their CEO:
"Commercial use is not a requirement for open source software. Study the MongoDB case."
Didn't know that MongoDB is open source. Because it's not. It's source-available, not open source.
Well, can't blame for users not checking this. Even It's FOSS News publication (https://news.itsfoss.com/skiff-mail-review/) got baited. Startups are using open source software's reputation, without contributing to the community (by using an proper license).
New (to me) word: open-washing
"The act of claiming something is open (without proprietary licensing) when it does not meet all the criteria of openness."
The word dates to at least 2014:
Here's a 2011 example of the practice from Nokia, I expect it's much older:
> Die Regierung möchte nur noch Software verwendet, die sie frei verwenden, verstehen und verändern kann.
Ich wünschte unser @Bundesregierung käme auch mal zu diesem Schluss und hielte konsequent daran fest. Mit #PublicMoneyPublicCode können aktuelle und zukünftige Herausforderungen bewältigt werden. Mit #GAFAM, #OpenWashing und #VendorLockIn nicht!
This week: "All Pocket accounts will be converted to Firefox accounts, an authentication service powered by Mozilla."
@LibreTexts it's great you're trying, but you're leaving, quite unapologetically, closed/not-libre elements in your core offering. Realise that your claim of needing proprietary software to scale is unconvincing. Many fully libre solutions scale far beyond your requirements today. As you explain, it seems you're neither really #open nor #libre and your use of those words dilutes their meanings, which are all about principle. That, unfortunately, is #openwashing/#librewashing.
@LibreTexts I couldn't find any reference to your open source code on your website... did I miss it? Also, why (especially with your chosen brand) wouldn't you make *all* your software open source? Unless someone can replicate your entire stack independently, it might as well *all* be proprietary. Creating #OER that requires your proprietary software seems very much against the spirit of the #open & #libre you trumpet everywhere. From my perspective, it seems your organisation is #openwashing.
#openwashing Wenn Offenheit zum leeren Versprechen wird
It is known that using proprietary software and infrastructure such as #Microsoft365 and #Zoom does not comply with the EU #GDPR. There are ready-to-use #OpenSource and #FreeSoftware alternatives available (e.g. @nextcloud, #Jitsi and @matrix).
However, German projects such as #dPhoenix for building a #SovereignWorkplace fail to follow the principles of #CodeSharing and appear to be #openwashing. The @fsfe doubts the ministry's willingness to foster a #PublicMoneyPublicCode strategy https://fsfe.org/news/2023/news-20230606-01.en.html
Remember “Open APIs?” How Tim O’Reilly told us they were how we would build the “open web” in “Web 2.0?”
Turns out an Open API is open in the sense that a gate owned by someone else is open. In that it can just as easily be closed and locked at their whim.
If anyone has a working scraper for "Open Archive" PDF content on the ScienceDirect platform, please let me know.
The PDFs there are only 'open' to humans doing clicks in web browsers. Security seems to have beefed-up a lot since I last did my scrapes! ☹️
99% open-source is not open-source! It is like saying I do not cheat on my partner 99% of the time.
I see this often in blog articles that #Chrome is open source, #Vivaldi is almost open source and so on because they are based on open source software.
By that logic everything can be claimed as open source. Every major browser uses open source engine. For that matter, any major software can be claimed to be open source it might be built on open source library or framework, etc.
It is okay to have a closed sourced software but marketing it as open-source is misleading!
@Ammienoot @massonpj Thanks a lot!
These examples will be quite useful for a couple of activities I’ve planned around a specific approach to the “open ecosystem”. Not that it’s so new. Mostly a tie-in with a simple preso at #OKFestMtl and the famed “Landscape of Open” according to Paul Stacey in preparation for his tenure @oeglobal.
Surely, @epilepticrabbit and @dajb will have a lot to say @weareopencoop. Fighting #Fauxpen and #OpenWashing any way we can!
If you are angry at #Docker (which you should be), switching to some other non-FOSS, non-self-hostable corporate container registry is just kicking the can down the road.
Especially GitHub. How long before Microsoft owns ALL the infrastructure for software development?
They've already got: GitHub (completely trapping decentralized FOSS git in a gilded cage), VS Code (serious #OpenWashing), a Chromium-based browser, NPM, Azure, C#/.NET, TypeScript, Bing, Windows, Outlook, Office.
#Kubernetes is a good example of a slightly different approach. Instead of being open core itself, it's an open framework for a component ecosystem that permits vendor-locked parts.
Kevin #McCarthy gives 44,000 hours of Jan. 6 security footage to Tucker #Carlson at #Fox. Not to any one else. Not to any Congressional committee. Not to the public. Asked why, he says "#Transparency."
@weblearning At the risk of raising controversy: part of the point, for me, is that there's more to #OpenEducation than "Open Content" (OERs and such). And opening up EdTech is more than leveraging LibreTexts or Pressbooks.
Useful, to me in this case, is Paul Stacey's #LandscapeOfOpen (before he became Executive Director @oeglobal).
Don't be fooled. This initiative is not about #OpenAccess books. It's from publishers and authors who generally don't want OA for books. It's about free events about books (good) and transparency about the book industry (good), but not OA for books.
PS: I can't tell whether the name is a marketing mistake by people unaware that "Open Books" is already a thing, and a thing in tension with what they are doing, or whether it's #OpenWashing.
Mehwish Ansari of Digital 19 rephrases this (and the points others made here on ISO) is that "membership on paper is not necessarily membership in practice".
This is even worse, of course, than simply gating membership in the first place. A kind of #OpenWashing
Gotta appease those sweet sweet corporate sponsors, I guess. Even when said sponsors are selling proprietary software.
@chris_spackman Hear, hear!
In some ways, it's an effect of the focus on cost. Though imperfect, CC licenses allow for far more than availability.
Having said this, some rationales behind special "terms and conditions" for educational resources make some sense in context. And they may eventually lead to #OpenEducation, if treated properly.
Still, you're right, NIH.