• conciselyverbose@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      The FTC takes action against false advertising.

      “Open Source” doesn’t have a singular legally relevant definition no matter what organizations claim otherwise, though.

      • Flumpkin@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        But lots of false claims for products would be considered false advertising even if those attributes don’t have a legal definition.

        • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          If the source isn’t available at all, yeah. Which is why I brought up the FTC to begin with (since Google is in the US).

          But I doubt they’d act if the license isn’t permissive enough.

        • intrepid@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          FSF has the term ‘free software’, which is well defined as to what qualifies as free software. In fact, it predates the term ‘open source’. OSI created the ‘open source’ definition based on FSF’s model.

          But like the term open source, there are those around with malicious vested interests who insist that these terms are generic and the publicly accepted strict definitions don’t apply. Their intention is to take advantage of ‘free software’ and ‘open source’ tags without making the necessary compromises.

          Any new definitions will have the same problem. The only solution is to call out the above mentioned people for dishonesty and their attempts to take advantage of FOSS definitions.