The Open Source Definition

Last updated

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.

Contents

History

There have been several attempts to define open source and free software. Amongst the earliest was Free Software Foundation's Free Software Definition, which then defined as the three freedoms of Free Software (Freedom Zero was added later). Published versions of FSF's Free Software Definition existed as early as 1986, having been published in the first edition of the (now defunct) GNU's Bulletin. [1]

Debian Free Software Guidelines

The DFSG was first published together with the first version of the Debian Social Contract in July 1997. [2] The primary author was Bruce Perens, with input from the Debian developers during a month-long discussion on a private mailing list, as part of the larger Debian Social Contract. Perens was copied to an email discussion between Ean Schuessler (then of Debian) and Donnie Barnes of Red Hat, in which Schuessler accused Red Hat of never elucidating its social contract with the Linux community. Perens realized that Debian did not have any formal social contract either, and immediately started creating one. The (then) Three Freedoms, which preceded the drafting and promulgation of the DFSG, were unknown to its authors. [3]

The guidelines were:

  1. Free redistribution.
  2. Inclusion of source code.
  3. Allowing for modifications and derived works.
  4. Integrity of the author's source code (as a compromise).
  5. No discrimination against persons or groups.
  6. No discrimination against fields of endeavor, like commercial use.
  7. The license needs to apply to all to whom the program is redistributed.
  8. License must not be specific to a product.
  9. License must not restrict other software.
  10. Example licenses: The GNU GPL, BSD, and Artistic licenses are examples of licenses considered free. [2] [4]

Open source

As Netscape released the open-source Mozilla browser in 1998, Bruce Perens again drafted a set of open-source guidelines to go with the release. [5] It has been claimed that the Open Source Definition was created by re-titling the exact text of the DFSG.

A modified version of this definition was adopted by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) as the Open Source Definition. [6] [7] The OSI uses the label "open source", rather than "free software", because it felt that the latter term had undesirable ideological and political freight, and it wanted to focus on the pragmatic and business-friendly arguments for open-source software. [6] It adopted a closed rather than membership-driven organizational model in order to draft the definition and work together with a wider variety of stakeholders than other free or open-source projects. [6]

Once the DFSG became the Open Source Definition, Richard Stallman saw the need to differentiate free software from open source and promoted the Free Software Definition. [8]

Debian diverges

In November 1998, Ian Jackson and others proposed several changes in a draft versioned 1.4, but the changes were never made official. Jackson stated [9] that the problems were "loose wording" and the patch clause.

The Debian General Resolution 2004-003, [10] titled "Editorial amendments to the social contract", modified the Social Contract. The proposer Andrew Suffield stated: [11]

"The rule is 'this resolution only changes the letter of the law, not the spirit'. Mostly it changes the wording of the social contract to better reflect what it is supposed to mean, and this is mostly in light of issues that were not considered when it was originally written."

However, the change of the sentence "We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free software" into "We promise that the Debian system and all its components will be free" resulted in the release manager, Anthony Towns, making a practical change: [12]

"As [SC #1] is no longer limited to 'software', and as this decision was made by developers after and during discussion of how we should consider non-software content such as documentation and firmware, I don't believe I can justify the policy decisions to exempt documentation, firmware, or content any longer, as the Social Contract has been amended to cover all these areas."

This prompted another General Resolution, 2004–004, [13] in which the developers voted overwhelmingly against immediate action, and decided to postpone those changes until the next release (whose development started a year later, in June 2005).

Criteria

Providing access to the source code is not enough for software to be considered "open-source". [14] The Open Source Definition requires that ten criteria be met: [15] [6]

  1. Free redistribution [15]
  2. Source code must be accessible and the license must permit redistribution in the form of source code (rather than object code). [15] In order to modify the software, access to source code is required. [16]
  3. Derivative works must be allowed and able to be redistributed under the same licensing terms as the open-source product [15]
  4. The license may require that the original software be distributed intact, but only if modifications are able to be distributed as patches without restriction. [15] [16]
  5. No discrimination between users [15]
  6. No discrimination between uses, including commercial use [15]
  7. Everyone who receives a copy of the program is granted all the open-source rights [15]
  8. The license must cover all the code, not a particular product or distribution. [15] [16]
  9. There may not be restrictions on other software distributed at the same time [15]
  10. Technological neutrality—cannot restrict use to any particular technology. [15] For example, a license that requires a user to click a box agreeing to it is not free because the work cannot be distributed as a paper copy. [16]

The Open Source Definition is available under a Creative Commons (CC BY 4.0) license. [17] It covers 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. It is part of the open source movement rather than the free software movement, and seeks to promote the availability of open-source software for anyone seeking to reuse it, even the makers of proprietary software. [6] [18] [16] It does not address warranty disclaimers, although these are very common in open-source software. [16] The definition does not specify a governance structure for open-source projects. [6]

Compliant licenses

The criteria are used by the OSI to approve certain licenses as compatible with the definition, and maintain a list of compliant licenses. New licenses have to submit a formal proposal that is discussed by the OSI mailing list before it is approved or rejected by the OSI board. Seven approved licenses are particularly recommended by the OSI as "popular, widely used, or having strong communities": [19]

Application

Software

Most discussions about the DFSG happen on the debian-legal mailing list. When a Debian Developer first uploads a package for inclusion in Debian, the ftpmaster team checks the software licenses and determines whether they are in accordance with the social contract. The team sometimes confers with the debian-legal list in difficult cases.

Non-"software" content

The DFSG is focused on software, but the word itself is unclear—some apply it to everything that can be expressed as a stream of bits, while a minority considers it to refer to just computer programs. Also, the existence of PostScript, executable scripts, sourced documents[ clarification needed ], etc., greatly muddies the second definition. Thus, to break the confusion, in June 2004 the Debian project decided to explicitly apply the same principles to software documentation, multimedia data and other content. The non-program content of Debian began to comply with the DFSG more strictly in Debian 4.0 (released in April 2007) and subsequent releases.

GFDL

Much documentation written by the GNU Project, the Linux Documentation Project and others licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License contain invariant sections, which do not comply with the DFSG. This assertion is the end result of a long discussion and the General Resolution 2006-001. [20]

Due to the GFDL invariant sections, content under this license must be separately contained in an additional "non-free" repository which is not officially considered part of Debian.

Multimedia files

It can be sometimes hard to define what constitutes the "source" for multimedia files, such as whether an uncompressed image file is the source of a compressed image and whether the 3D model before ray tracing is the source for its resulting image.

The debian-legal mailing list subscribers have created some tests to check whether a license violates the DFSG. The common tests (as described in the draft DFSG FAQ) [21] are the following:

Reception

The Open Source Definition is the most widely used definition for open-source software, [22] and is often used as a standard for whether a project is open source. [17] It and the official definitions of free software by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) essentially cover the same software licenses. [6] [23] Nevertheless, there is a values difference between the free software and open source movements: the former is more based on ethics and values, the latter on pragmatism. [6]

Derived definitions

The Open Knowledge Foundation's Open Definition is substantially derivative of the Open Source Definition. [24]

The Open Source Hardware Statement of Principles is adapted from the Open Source Definition. [25] [22]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bruce Perens</span> American computer scientist

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Debian</span> Linux distribution based on free and open-source software

Debian, also known as Debian GNU/Linux, is a free and open source Linux distribution, developed by the Debian Project, which was established by Ian Murdock in August 1993. Debian is one of the oldest operating systems based on the Linux kernel, and is the basis for many other Linux distributions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Free software</span> Software licensed to be freely used, modified and distributed

Free software, libre software, libreware sometimes known as freedom-respecting software is computer software distributed under terms that allow users to run the software for any purpose as well as to study, change, and distribute it and any adapted versions. Free software is a matter of liberty, not price; all users are legally free to do what they want with their copies of a free software regardless of how much is paid to obtain the program. Computer programs are deemed "free" if they give end-users ultimate control over the software and, subsequently, over their devices.

The Free Software Definition written by Richard Stallman and published by the Free Software Foundation (FSF), defines free software as being software that ensures that the users have freedom in using, studying, sharing and modifying that software. The term "free" is used in the sense of "free speech," not of "free of charge." The earliest-known publication of the definition was in the February 1986 edition of the now-discontinued GNU's Bulletin publication by the FSF. The canonical source for the document is in the philosophy section of the GNU Project website. As of April 2008, it is published in 39 languages. The FSF publishes a list of licences that meet this definition.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Open-source license</span> Software license allowing source code to be used, modified, and shared

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Open Source Initiative</span> Non-profit organization promoting open-source software

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".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Source Mage</span> Linux distribution

Source Mage is a source-based Linux distribution descended from Sorcerer. Components of this operating system are downloaded as source code and compiled locally on the user's computer.

The Open Software License (OSL) is a software license created by Lawrence Rosen. The Open Source Initiative (OSI) has certified it as an open-source license, but the Debian project judged version 1.1 to be incompatible with the DFSG. The OSL is a copyleft license, with a termination clause triggered by filing a lawsuit alleging patent infringement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Open-source software</span> Software licensed to ensure source code usage rights

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.

Alternative terms for free software, such as open source, FOSS, and FLOSS, have been a controversial issue among free and open-source software users from the late 1990s onwards. These terms share almost identical licence criteria and development practices.

The IBM Public License (IPL) is a free open-source software license written and occasionally used by IBM. It is approved by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and described as an "open-source license" by the Open Source Initiative.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of free and open-source software</span>

The history of free and open-source software begins at the advent of computer software in the early half of the 20th century. In the 1950s and 1960s, computer operating software and compilers were delivered as a part of hardware purchases without separate fees. At the time, source code—the human-readable form of software—was generally distributed with the software, providing the ability to fix bugs or add new functions. Universities were early adopters of computing technology. Many of the modifications developed by universities were openly shared, in keeping with the academic principles of sharing knowledge, and organizations sprung up to facilitate sharing.

License compatibility is a legal framework that allows for pieces of software with different software licenses to be distributed together. The need for such a framework arises because the different licenses can contain contradictory requirements, rendering it impossible to legally combine source code from separately-licensed software in order to create and publish a new program. Proprietary licenses are generally program-specific and incompatible; authors must negotiate to combine code. Copyleft licenses are commonly deliberately incompatible with proprietary licenses, in order to prevent copyleft software from being re-licensed under a proprietary license, turning it into proprietary software. Many copyleft licenses explicitly allow relicensing under some other copyleft licenses. Permissive licenses are compatible with everything, including proprietary licenses; there is thus no guarantee that all derived works will remain under a permissive license.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to free software and the free software movement:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Free-software license</span> License allowing software modification and redistribution

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyleft</span> Practice of mandating free use in all derivatives of a work

Copyleft is the legal technique of granting certain freedoms over copies of copyrighted works with the requirement that the same rights be preserved in derivative works. In this sense, freedoms refers to the use of the work for any purpose, and the ability to modify, copy, share, and redistribute the work, with or without a fee. Licenses which implement copyleft can be used to maintain copyright conditions for works ranging from computer software, to documents, art, and scientific discoveries, and similar approaches have even been applied to certain patents.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">GNU General Public License</span> Series of free software licenses

The GNU General Public Licenses are a series of widely used free software licenses, or copyleft licenses, that guarantee end users the freedoms to run, study, share, and/or modify the software. The GPL was the first copyleft license available for general use. It was originally written by Richard Stallman, the founder of the Free Software Foundation (FSF), for the GNU Project. The license grants the recipients of a computer program the rights of the Free Software Definition. The licenses in the GPL series are all copyleft licenses, which means that any derivative work must be distributed under the same or equivalent license terms. It is more restrictive than the Lesser General Public License, and even further distinct from the more widely-used permissive software licenses such as BSD, MIT, and Apache.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">GNU Free Documentation License</span> Copyleft license primarily for free software documentation

The GNU Free Documentation License is a copyleft license for free documentation, designed by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) for the GNU Project. It is similar to the GNU General Public License, giving readers the rights to copy, redistribute, and modify a work and requires all copies and derivatives to be available under the same license. Copies may also be sold commercially, but, if produced in larger quantities, the original document or source code must be made available to the work's recipient.

The Server Side Public License (SSPL) is a source-available copyleft software license introduced by MongoDB Inc. in 2018.

References

  1. Richard M. Stallman, What is the Free Software Foundation?, GNU's Bulletin, Volume 1, No.1, February 1986
  2. 1 2 Bruce Perens (1997-07-04). "Debian's "Social Contract" with the Free Software Community". debian-announce mailing list.
  3. Bruce Perens: "when I had to write license guidelines for Debian, the Four Freedoms document was unknown."
  4. "Debian Social Contract". Debian. 2004-04-26.
  5. Overly, Michael R. (2003). The Open Source Handbook. Pike & Fischer. p. 5. ISBN   978-0-937275-12-2.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Gardler, Ross; Walli, Stephen R (2022). "Evolving Perspective on Community and Governance". Open Source Law, Policy and Practice. Oxford University PressOxford. p. 47–48, 52. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198862345.003.0002. ISBN   978-0-19-886234-5.
  7. Katz, Andrew (2022). "Everything Open". Open Source Law, Policy and Practice. Oxford University Press. p. 521. ISBN   978-0-19-260687-7.
  8. Richard Stallman. "Why "Open Source" misses the point of Free Software". GNU website.
  9. Ian Jackson: Draft new DFSG, debian-devel mailing list
  10. General Resolution: Editorial amendments to the social contract
  11. Andrew Suffield: Re: Candidate social contract amendments (part 1: editorial) (3rd draft), debian-vote mailing list
  12. Anthony Towns: Social Contract GR's effect on Sarge, debian-devel mailing list
  13. General Resolution: Sarge Release Schedule in view of GR 2004-003
  14. Greenleaf, Graham; Lindsay, David (2018). Public Rights: Copyright's Public Domains. Cambridge University Press. p. 485. ISBN   978-1-107-13406-5.
  15. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Erlich, Zippy (2007). "Open Source Software". Handbook of Research on Open Source Software. IGI Global. pp. 187–188. ISBN   978-1591409991.
  16. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Laurent, Andrew M. St (2004). Understanding Open Source and Free Software Licensing: Guide to Navigating Licensing Issues in Existing & New Software. O'Reilly Media, Inc. pp. 9–11. ISBN   978-0-596-55395-1.
  17. 1 2 Mertic, John (2023). Open Source Projects - Beyond Code: A blueprint for scalable and sustainable open source projects. Packt Publishing Ltd. p. 5. ISBN   978-1-83763-385-2.
  18. Meeker, Heather J. (2008). The Open Source Alternative: Understanding Risks and Leveraging Opportunities. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 21–22. ISBN   978-0-470-25581-0.
  19. Smith, P McCoy (2022). "Copyright, Contract, and Licensing in Open Source". Open Source Law, Policy and Practice. Oxford University PressOxford. pp. 108–111. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198862345.003.0003. ISBN   978-0-19-886234-5.
  20. General Resolution: Why the GNU Free Documentation License is not suitable for Debian main
  21. The Debian Free Software FAQ
  22. 1 2 De Maria, Carmelo; Díaz Lantada, Andrés; Di Pietro, Licia; Ravizza, Alice; Ahluwalia, Arti (2022). "Open-Source Medical Devices: Concept, Trends, and Challenges Toward Equitable Healthcare Technology". Engineering Open-Source Medical Devices. Cham: Springer International Publishing. p. 4. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-79363-0_1. ISBN   978-3-030-79362-3.
  23. Kelty, Christpher M. (2008). "The Cultural Significance of free Software – Two Bits" (PDF). Duke University Press. p. 99. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2016-03-04. Retrieved 2016-02-24.
  24. Martin, Victoria (2022). The Complete Guide to Open Scholarship. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 27. ISBN   979-8-216-06415-2.
  25. Bonvoisin, Jérémy; Mies, Robert; Boujut, Jean-François; Stark, Rainer (2017). "What is the "Source" of Open Source Hardware?". Journal of Open Hardware. 1 (1). doi: 10.5334/joh.7 . ISSN   2514-1708.