3 ms·

> Personally, I think using "open source" to mean "the source is open to the public" is as misguided as using "free software" to mean "the software is free of c

> Personally, I think using "open source" to mean "the source is open to the public" is as misguided as using "free software" to mean "the software is free of charge," but in practice there's a lot more ambiguity in the former, not the latter. I would disagree. Both the terms "open source" and "free software" existed prior to the open-source software movement. Either way, you don't get to co-opt the plain English meaning just because you've invented your own jargon. That's not how language works.

the_af 8y ago
I disagree with your disagreement. That's precisely how language works: we co-opt words and change their meaning all the time; this happens all the time with software, engineering and physics. Open source has come to mean something in the software development world (and it arguably never meant "the source is open to the public but they must pay for its use", so it's not even an actual subversion). Some companies now might be trying to redefine the term, and it's up to us -- the programming community -- to stop them by rejecting this redefinition.
- da_chicken 8y ago
  My point is that while, yes, terms of art are coined all the time, they don't get authority over plain English by virtue of existing. Sociologists don't get to say, "Well, that's not technically what gender means," when you can open up a dictionary and show that, yes, that is damn well exactly what gender means in English. I mean, yes, they do try to do that, but they don't actually have any authority to do so. That some wish to draw a distinction from a term of art does not meant that all uses of that term must draw the same distinction or be considered a term of art. English, and indeed all natural languages, support words with multiple, often contradictory meanings. English, being defined by usage, does not care at all about any authority in language. The words "free software" will essentially forever mean "software obtained without monetary cost" because that's what those words mean in plain English. That's the semantic meaning of combining that adjective with that noun. The fact that a second definition exists where "free software" is a compound word is mostly irrelevant. The fact that engineers have a specific meaning for "shear" doesn't mean I can't call my scissors "shears". That's why so many terms of art are invented whole-cloth and why acronyms as terms of art are so prevalent. It's precisely to avoid that contextual semantic collision that plain English doesn't give two shits about.
  - the_af 8y ago
    > The words "free software" will essentially forever mean "software obtained without monetary cost" because that's what those words mean in plain English. Well, "software" is a relatively new word, so I'm not sure about "forever" (is software a soft ware?). And within the short lifespan of this word, the term Free Software in the technically accepted jargon has been in use for a really long time (at least early 80s, apparently). Yes, non-technical people won't understand what "free software", "open source", or "source" means for that matter. They don't understand what a license means in terms of software either. They don't know or care about hacker culture, or the history of computing. That's ok. Language has meaning within communities. This is our community. GitLab, GitHub, Microsoft, and most HN readers do understand the mainstream meanings -- within our community -- of "Free Software" and "Open Source". This is just like when physicists say a nuclear reactor goes "critical" they immediately understand the term, even when to a layperson it sounds scary and in common language "critical" means something else.
geofft 8y ago
I think that's true of "free software," but I'm not sure it's true of "open source" - the primary meaning before the FOSS movements was open source intelligence (OSINT), i.e., intelligence collected from open sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_intelligence I'd believe that a phrase like "open source code" or something (parsed as "open source-code," not "open-source code") existed in the way "free software" did. (Also, the fact that "intelligence" has a jargon meaning other than "smartness" is a good example that that is in fact how language works.)

the_af 8y ago

I disagree with your disagreement. That's precisely how language works: we co-opt words and change their meaning all the time; this happens all the time with software, engineering and physics. Open source has come to mean something in the software development world (and it arguably never meant "the source is open to the public but they must pay for its use", so it's not even an actual subversion). Some companies now might be trying to redefine the term, and it's up to us -- the programming community -- to stop them by rejecting this redefinition.

da_chicken 8y ago
My point is that while, yes, terms of art are coined all the time, they don't get authority over plain English by virtue of existing. Sociologists don't get to say, "Well, that's not technically what gender means," when you can open up a dictionary and show that, yes, that is damn well exactly what gender means in English. I mean, yes, they do try to do that, but they don't actually have any authority to do so. That some wish to draw a distinction from a term of art does not meant that all uses of that term must draw the same distinction or be considered a term of art. English, and indeed all natural languages, support words with multiple, often contradictory meanings. English, being defined by usage, does not care at all about any authority in language. The words "free software" will essentially forever mean "software obtained without monetary cost" because that's what those words mean in plain English. That's the semantic meaning of combining that adjective with that noun. The fact that a second definition exists where "free software" is a compound word is mostly irrelevant. The fact that engineers have a specific meaning for "shear" doesn't mean I can't call my scissors "shears". That's why so many terms of art are invented whole-cloth and why acronyms as terms of art are so prevalent. It's precisely to avoid that contextual semantic collision that plain English doesn't give two shits about.
- the_af 8y ago
  > The words "free software" will essentially forever mean "software obtained without monetary cost" because that's what those words mean in plain English. Well, "software" is a relatively new word, so I'm not sure about "forever" (is software a soft ware?). And within the short lifespan of this word, the term Free Software in the technically accepted jargon has been in use for a really long time (at least early 80s, apparently). Yes, non-technical people won't understand what "free software", "open source", or "source" means for that matter. They don't understand what a license means in terms of software either. They don't know or care about hacker culture, or the history of computing. That's ok. Language has meaning within communities. This is our community. GitLab, GitHub, Microsoft, and most HN readers do understand the mainstream meanings -- within our community -- of "Free Software" and "Open Source". This is just like when physicists say a nuclear reactor goes "critical" they immediately understand the term, even when to a layperson it sounds scary and in common language "critical" means something else.

geofft 8y ago

I think that's true of "free software," but I'm not sure it's true of "open source" - the primary meaning before the FOSS movements was open source intelligence (OSINT), i.e., intelligence collected from open sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_intelligence I'd believe that a phrase like "open source code" or something (parsed as "open source-code," not "open-source code") existed in the way "free software" did. (Also, the fact that "intelligence" has a jargon meaning other than "smartness" is a good example that that is in fact how language works.)