Openwashing

What does Zig Forums think of openwashing? Pic related.
>When you see an individual, organization, or company claim that their software is "open," check to see if their software is licensed under an OSI approved license. If it is not, they are openwashing.
>When you see an individual, organization, or company claim that their content is "open," check to see if it is licensed under a Creative Commons license, another license that grants you the 5R permissions, or placed in the public domain. If it is not, they are openwashing.
Source: openwashing.org/
What can be done to remedy it?
Have Open Source cucks finally realized their efforts in employing 'more business friendly' language and distancing themselves from Free Software to avoid the ambiguity of the term have been an exercise in futility, sometimes even counterproductive?

Attached: openwashing.png (1140x350, 22.28K)

Other urls found in this thread:

opensource.org/node/908
freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/contributors/contrib-additional.html
lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-advocacy/2015-July/004551.html
venturebeat.com/2014/03/25/microsoft-open-sources-ms-dos-80s-kids-dance-in-the-streets/
infoworld.com/article/2610884/open-source-software/psych--microsoft-didn-t-really-open-source-ms-dos.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_display_standard
twitter.com/AnonBabble

fsf_cake.jpg

you could copyright the word open

Case in point, OpenNIC vs OpenDNS
The former is based in free and open source software as well as being decentralized.
The latter is proprietary and run by Cisco, with the open label referring to it being publicly available.

opensource.org/node/908

TL;DR

Attached: OpenClosed.png (1023x270, 517.48K)

Attached: laugh-1479504139344.jpg-1520442559680.jpg (635x635, 49.95K)

"Oh no, they used a term in a way I don't like! Let's pester them to change it!". Fuck off, freetards.

No, that's not what happens. They insist it's open source because everyone who gets the software in the first place gets the source code with all rights attached. They don't give anything to the public at large.
And they're right. That's how the free software and open source definitions work. They're defined in terms of what you can do with software once you have it.
Whether that strategy is a good thing is orthogonal to whether the software is FOSS.

Create a proprietary label that implies all of FSF's requirements for something to be "free software" and distribute certificates for it under paid licenses, while suing anyone which tries to imply that they're compliant with said requirements.

Are you suggesting that we go after freeware which isn't free software?