4 ms·

The generally accepted definition of open source is the OSI definition. OSI also audits and keeps a list of software which qualifies under that definition, whic

The generally accepted definition of open source is the OSI definition. OSI also audits and keeps a list of software which qualifies under that definition, which is accepted as the canonical list of open source licenses by everyone. Even if OSI is not your cup of tea (they're a very netural organization, so I don't see why anyone would protest their authority), the FSF is another venerable organization that provides a similar definition of open source and maintains a similar list of open source licenses. You would be hard pressed to find any other respected authority which defines open source in a manner consistent with the Commons Clause. It's deliberately misleading people to ape this terminology to promote software which does not guarantee the fundamental freedoms of open source. If you want to use a proprietary license, own up to it, don't try to get the mindshare of open source when you aren't. The ancient Greek empire might have included Italy in the past, but an Italian who says they're from Greece today is lying.

kbenson 8y ago
> It's deliberately misleading people to ape this terminology to promote software which does not guarantee the fundamental freedoms of open source. That may be, but the terminology chosen by OSI is easily misunderstood, exacerbating this problem. When I see "open source", I think mostly of the source and can I see it, possibly whether I am allowed to alter it for myself. Like an "open book" (hey, I can freely annotate my own copy). Whether something is free to sell, or redistribute, or alter and redistribute always seemed like variations on what the easily inferred (even if incorrectly inferred) core meaning of open source. Interestingly, I think the vast majority of people probably think open source means the source is visible, regardless of whether it's an OSI approved license, and regardless of whether they are happy with the license. If that's true, and common usage is at odds with OSI intention, where does that leave us? I think I could easily argue either side in that case.
- simonw 8y ago
  > Interestingly, I think the vast majority of people probably think open source means the source is visible, regardless of whether it's an OSI approved license, and regardless of whether they are happy with the license. It leaves us with an education problem. Ten years ago I don't recall ever seeing people confuse the term Open Source with source-code-available - but the Open Source community was much, much smaller then so I guess the people involved were all on the same page. Now that Open Source has genuinely won (when's the last time you hard a company say they have a policy of NOT using open source?) it seems we have a new terminology problem that I was previously unaware of.

kbenson 8y ago

> It's deliberately misleading people to ape this terminology to promote software which does not guarantee the fundamental freedoms of open source. That may be, but the terminology chosen by OSI is easily misunderstood, exacerbating this problem. When I see "open source", I think mostly of the source and can I see it, possibly whether I am allowed to alter it for myself. Like an "open book" (hey, I can freely annotate my own copy). Whether something is free to sell, or redistribute, or alter and redistribute always seemed like variations on what the easily inferred (even if incorrectly inferred) core meaning of open source. Interestingly, I think the vast majority of people probably think open source means the source is visible, regardless of whether it's an OSI approved license, and regardless of whether they are happy with the license. If that's true, and common usage is at odds with OSI intention, where does that leave us? I think I could easily argue either side in that case.

simonw 8y ago
> Interestingly, I think the vast majority of people probably think open source means the source is visible, regardless of whether it's an OSI approved license, and regardless of whether they are happy with the license. It leaves us with an education problem. Ten years ago I don't recall ever seeing people confuse the term Open Source with source-code-available - but the Open Source community was much, much smaller then so I guess the people involved were all on the same page. Now that Open Source has genuinely won (when's the last time you hard a company say they have a policy of NOT using open source?) it seems we have a new terminology problem that I was previously unaware of.