Affirmation of OpenSource Definition

(Stephen Senkomago Musoke) #1

I think as a community, there is need to join this affirmation

https://opensource.org/node/966

(Noah Lufafa) #2

But given the sensitivity of the information we handle, won’t there be breeches that could endanger our relevance? If this is a starting point for the community, is there nothing to fear? Secondly if we join, we need to assess, what are the benefits and what are the possible risks if at all there is any. If it still leaves us on a safe side then we join.

(Burke Mamlin) #3

OpenMRS has been an OSI affiliate since 2015. I’m not sure what’s behind this statement:

Recently there have been efforts to undermine the integrity of open source by claiming there is no need for a single, authoritative definition.

Without more info, all I can assume is there are some large commercial entities trying to bend definitions to increase profits for their shareholders.

We already support OSI’s definition of open source as an affiliate. It’s hard to see how signing this affirmation would change anything for OpenMRS. If it helps OSI in their mission, then I’m all for it.

That said, we all know their is already a single, standard definition of open source software… it’s whatever the Wikipedia page says it is. :wink:

(Robby O'Connor) #4

Yeah this is corporations trying to kill FOSS and make money off of it. Totally not what I or anyone signed up for.

(Cintia Del Rio) #5

It feels silly to say we agree with the definition of a term (!!!), or that the sky’s blue, but whatever they need.

I’d like names and news here. Anyone have hints?