 | |
| Formation | February 8, 1998 |
|---|---|
| Type | Standards organization [1] |
| Location |
|
Area served | Worldwide |
Executive Director | Stefano Maffulli (September 2021 – present) |
| Budget | US$ 209,500 (2019) [3] |
| Revenue | US$ 209,500 (2019) [4] |
| Website | opensource |
The Open Source Initiative (OSI) is a California public benefit corporation "actively involved in Open Source community-building, education, and public advocacy to promote awareness and the importance of non-proprietary software". [5]
The OSI is a California public-benefit nonprofit corporation, with 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. [6] It adopted a closed rather than membership-driven organizational model in order to build consensus around its definition. All authority is vested in its Board of Directors, and future boards are appointed by the current board. This governance model has hampered OSI's efforts to achieve other goals not related to the definition. Unlike other free and open-source organizations, it does not develop software, which means that volunteer efforts have been directed elsewhere. [1]
In 2008, the OSI attempted to reform its governance, inviting fifty people onto a private mailing list, but this attempt led to no publicly available result. [1] In 2012, the organization again tried to transition towards a membership-based structure, creating affiliate and individual memberships without any formal say over the organization. A plan for corporate membership was also announced, but has not materialized as of 2022 [update] . The motivation for adopting a membership-based structure is to obtain greater financial resources, enabling full-time positions to increase the organization's effectiveness. [1] [7]
In March 2021, the OSI organization held a vote for executive director among its members, but the results were annulled because the election was hacked. [8] The election was re-run and Stefano Maffulli appointed its first executive director in September 2021. [9]
The Open Source Definition is the most widely accepted standard for open-source software. [10] [11] Providing access to the source code is not enough for software to be considered "open-source": it must also allow modification and redistribution under the same terms and all uses, including commercial use. [12] The Open Source Definition requires that ten criteria be met for a license to be approved. [13] [1] It allows both copyleft—where redistribution and derivative works must be released under a free license—and permissive licenses—where derivative works can be released under any license. [1] [14] [15] Software licenses covered by the Open Source Definition also meet the Free Software Definition and vice versa. Both the Free Software Foundation and the OSI share the goal of supporting free and open-source software. [1]
The OSI approves certain licenses as compatible with the definition, and maintains a list of compliant licenses. New licenses have to submit a formal proposal explaining the rationale for the license, comparison with existing approved licenses, and any legal analysis. The proposal is discussed on the OSI mailing list for at least 30 days before being brought to a vote and approved or rejected by the OSI board. Although the OSI has made an effort to have a transparent process, the approval process has been a source of controversy. [16]
Seven approved licenses are particularly recommended by the OSI as "popular, widely used, or having strong communities": [16]
In 2022, OSI began work on an Open Source AI Definition (OSAID), inviting select researchers and corporate representatives to make a draft. Even companies with accessible code often do not release the data set used to train the model and impose usage restrictions on what can be done with the trained model. Maffulli said a new definition was necessary because artificial intelligence "is different from regular software and forces all stakeholders to review how the Open Source principles apply to this space". Open Source Definition author Bruce Perens was skeptical about the need to address AI separately, claiming it is going to confuse the open source brand because the existing definition applies to all software. [17] [18]
The release of the Open Source Artificial Intelligence Definition (OSAID), version 1.0 in November, 2024 opened up new disagreements and considerable ill-feeling, further stirring up ongoing tensions. OpenUK CEO Amanda Brock said it was a mistake as the market will shift and change, noting that it undermines longevity by creating confusion and dispersing resources. She also referred to the absence of dedicated definitions for mobile and cloud, which would have been "very inappropriate". There were questions about whether such a definition is useful for policymakers, researchers, and technologists. [19] [20]
As a campaign of sorts, "open source" was launched in 1998 by Christine Peterson, Jon "maddog" Hall, Larry Augustin, Eric S. Raymond, Bruce Perens, and others. [21] [22]
The group adopted the Open Source Definition for open-source software, based on the Debian Free Software Guidelines. They also established the Open Source Initiative (OSI) as a steward organization for the movement. However, they were unsuccessful in their attempt to secure a trademark for 'open source' to control the use of the term. [23] In 2008, in an apparent effort to reform governance of the organization, the OSI Board invited 50 individuals to join a "Charter Members" group; by 26 July 2008, 42 of the original invitees had accepted the invitations. The full membership of the Charter Members has never been publicly revealed, and the Charter Members group communicated by way of a closed-subscription mailing list, "osi-discuss", with non-public archives. [24]
In 2012, under the leadership of OSI director and then-president Simon Phipps, the OSI began transitioning towards a membership-based governance structure. The OSI initiated an Affiliate Membership program for "government-recognized non-profit charitable and not-for-profit industry associations and academic institutions anywhere in the world". [25] Subsequently, the OSI announced an Individual Membership program [26] and listed a number of Corporate Sponsors. [27]
On November 8, 2013, OSI appointed Patrick Masson as its general manager. [28] From August 2020 to September 2021, Deb Nicholson was the interim general manager. [29] Under the direction of Deborah Nicholson, the interim manager, the voting and election was held with results and then halted and set for re-election due to vulnerabilities in the election process. "This week we found a vulnerability in our voting processes that was exploited and had an impact on the outcome of the recent Board Election." [30] No election results or further updates are posted as of June 2021 [update] .[ citation needed ]
In November 2020 the board of directors announced a search for an executive director [31] which was concluded in September 2021 with the appointment of Stefano Maffulli. At the same time, the role of president of the board was abandoned in favor of chair of the board.
In October 2009, the OSI lost its corporate status, having been suspended by the state of California for failing to submit paperwork on time. [32]
In January 2020, founder Bruce Perens left OSI over controversy regarding a new license (the Cryptographic Autonomy License), which had been proposed for the OSI's approval. [33] Later, in August 2020, Perens elaborated on his concerns: "We created a tower of babel of licenses. We did not design-in license compliance, and we have a tremendous noncompliance problem that isn't getting better. We can't afford to sue our copyright infringers." [34] [35]
Eric S. Raymond, another co-founder of the OSI, was later banned from the OSI mailing list in March 2020. [35] He had claimed "OSI has been suborned and is betraying its founding commitment to freedom" the month prior. [36]
The release of the Open Source AI Definition (OSAID) was controversial, opening up new disagreements and considerable ill-feeling. [19]
Bruce Perens is an American computer programmer and advocate in the free software movement. He created The Open Source Definition and published the first formal announcement and manifesto of open source. He co-founded the Open Source Initiative (OSI) with Eric S. Raymond.
The free software movement is a social movement with the goal of obtaining and guaranteeing certain freedoms for software users, namely the freedoms to run, study, modify, and share copies of software. Software which meets these requirements, The Four Essential Freedoms of Free Software, is termed free software.
Open-source licenses are software licenses that allow content to be used, modified, and shared. They facilitate free and open-source software (FOSS) development. Intellectual property (IP) laws restrict the modification and sharing of creative works. Free and open-source licenses use these existing legal structures for an inverse purpose. They grant the recipient the rights to use the software, examine the source code, modify it, and distribute the modifications. These criteria are outlined in the Open Source Definition.
The Open Source Definition (OSD) is a document published by the Open Source Initiative. Derived from Bruce Perens' Debian Free Software Guidelines, the definition is the most common standard for open-source software. The definition has ten criteria, such as requiring freely accessed source code and granting the open-source rights to everyone who receives a copy of the program. Covering both copyleft and permissive licenses, it is effectively identical to the definition of free software, but motivated by more pragmatic and business-friendly considerations. The Open Source Initiative's board votes on proposals of licenses to certify that they are compliant with the definition, and maintains a list of compliant licenses on its website. The definition has been adapted into the Open Knowledge Foundation's Open Definition for open knowledge and into open hardware definitions.
Open-source software (OSS) is computer software that is released under a license in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software and its source code to anyone and for any purpose. Open-source software may be developed in a collaborative, public manner. Open-source software is a prominent example of open collaboration, meaning any capable user is able to participate online in development, making the number of possible contributors indefinite. The ability to examine the code facilitates public trust in the software.
Source-available software is software released through a source code distribution model that includes arrangements where the source can be viewed, and in some cases modified, but without necessarily meeting the criteria to be called open-source. The licenses associated with the offerings range from allowing code to be viewed for reference to allowing code to be modified and redistributed for both commercial and non-commercial purposes.
Open-source hardware consists of physical artifacts of technology designed and offered by the open-design movement. Both free and open-source software (FOSS) and open-source hardware are created by this open-source culture movement and apply a like concept to a variety of components. It is sometimes, thus, referred to as FOSH. The term usually means that information about the hardware is easily discerned so that others can make it – coupling it closely to the maker movement. Hardware design, in addition to the software that drives the hardware, are all released under free/libre terms. The original sharer gains feedback and potentially improvements on the design from the FOSH community. There is now significant evidence that such sharing can drive a high return on investment for the scientific community.
Free and open-source software (FOSS) is software that is available under an open-source license that grants the right to use, modify, and distribute the software, modified or not, to everyone free of charge. The public availability of the source code is, therefore, a necessary but not sufficient condition. FOSS is also a loosely associated movement of multiple organizations, foundations, communities and individuals who share basic philosophical perspectives and collaborate practically, but might diverge in detail questions. The historical precursor to this was the hobbyist and academic public domain software ecosystem of the 1960s to 1980s. FOSS is an inclusive umbrella term for free software and open-source software. FOSS is in contrast to proprietary software, which consists of software under restrictive copyright or licensing as well as software with undisclosed source code.
GNOME Foundation is a non-profit organization based in Orinda, California, United States, which works to coordinate the efforts in the GNOME project.
Alternative terms for free software, such as open source, FOSS, and FLOSS, have been a recurring issue among free and open-source software users from the late 1990s onwards. These terms share almost identical licence criteria and development practices.
This comparison only covers software licenses which have a linked Wikipedia article for details and which are approved by at least one of the following expert groups: the Free Software Foundation, the Open Source Initiative, the Debian Project and the Fedora Project. For a list of licenses not specifically intended for software, see List of free-content licences.
Open-source films are films which are produced and distributed by using free and open-source and open content methodologies. Their sources are freely available and the licenses used meet the demands of the Open Source Initiative (OSI) in terms of freedom.
The GNU Affero General Public License is a free, copyleft license published by the Free Software Foundation in November 2007, and based on the GNU GPL version 3 and the Affero General Public License (non-GNU).
A free-software license is a notice that grants the recipient of a piece of software extensive rights to modify and redistribute that software. These actions are usually prohibited by copyright law, but the rights-holder of a piece of software can remove these restrictions by accompanying the software with a software license which grants the recipient these rights. Software using such a license is free software as conferred by the copyright holder. Free-software licenses are applied to software in source code and also binary object-code form, as the copyright law recognizes both forms.
The Shared Source Initiative (SSI) is a source-available software licensing scheme launched by Microsoft in May 2001. The program includes a spectrum of technologies and licenses, and most of its source code offerings are available for download after eligibility criteria are met.
The open-core model is a business model for the monetization of commercially produced open-source software. The open-core model primarily involves offering a "core" or feature-limited version of a software product as free and open-source software, while offering "commercial" versions or add-ons as proprietary software. The term was coined by Andrew Lampitt in 2008.
A free license or open license is a license that allows copyrighted work to be reused, modified, and redistributed. These uses are normally prohibited by copyright, patent or other Intellectual property (IP) laws. The term broadly covers free content licenses and open-source licenses, also known as free software licenses.
Post Open is a proposed successor to the Open Source software paradigm, originated by Bruce Perens, the creator of the Open Source Definition and co-founder of the Open Source Initiative. It is promoted at the web site PostOpen.org
The .NET Foundation is an organization incorporated on March 31, 2014, by Microsoft to improve open-source software development and collaboration around the .NET Framework. It was launched at the annual Build 2014 conference held by Microsoft. The foundation is license-agnostic, and projects that come to the foundation are free to choose any open-source license, as defined by the Open Source Initiative (OSI). The foundation uses GitHub to host the open-source projects it manages.
The Server Side Public License (SSPL) is a source-available copyleft software license introduced by MongoDB Inc. in 2018.
| General | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Software packages | |||
| Community | |||
| Organisations | |||
| Licenses |
| ||
| Challenges | |||
| Related topics | |||
