10 ms·
You don't own the term open source mate.
by vasco 8y ago
You don't own the term open source mate.
- FooBarWidget 8y agoYour opinion isn't the only one out there. I recognize the OSI as the authority on the term open source. On a more practical level: who do you consider be the authority? If the answer is 'nobody' (except yourself) then that makes the term essentially meaningless because there is no standardization, which means that one should stop using that term.
- sangnoir 8y agoMongoDB recognizes OSI as an authority as well, which is why they submitted their license to OSI for approval. Which led us to this moment, where OSI has not (/yet) granted that approval, and that apparently raised gp's hackles for some reason.
- twblalock 8y agoMongoDB recognizes that OSI approval is a nice thing to have as a selling point. I very much doubt that they accept the OSI as an authority that can make binding rules and regulations about who gets to call their software "open source".
- vasco 8y agoSo by me saying that the term might be interpreted differently by different people - since it can't be owned by anyone now that it's in wide use (and hence implying there's different opinions out there) you assume that I fail to see there's a multitude of different opinions on the matter? That's exactly the point I was making.
- sangnoir 8y agoOnly if you're completely ignoring the context, which is MongoDB asked OSI to approve their license as "Open Source" - OSI isn't in a position to do so immediately, and so in OSI's estimation, MongoDB isn't "Open Source"
- jfk13 8y agoAs OSI hasn't yet reviewed the license, perhaps it would have been better for the OSI VP to explain that "MongoDB may not meet the OSI definition of Open Source" than to announce (in CAPITALS, no less) that "MongoDB...IS NOT OPEN SOURCE".
- sangnoir 8y ago> "MongoDB may not meet the OSI definition of Open Source" That's just euphemism for "MongoDB is not (certified) Open source". It either is, or isn't; and presently it isn't, for reasons that were entirely under MongoDB's control.
- BFatts 8y agoIf it doesn't fit the OSD (https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd) it IS NOT OPEN SOURCE. The license has not been reviewed by the OSI, and there isn't any "Approved until shown otherwise" clause to refer to. So, in the OSI's eyes (and really anyone who knows what open source actually is) it's NOT OPEN SOURCE anymore.
- jfk13 8y ago> If it doesn't fit the OSD (https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd) it IS NOT OPEN SOURCE. Well, that presupposes that the OSD is the One True Definition of the term "Open Source"; although the OSD is widely accepted and respected, that's a rather bold claim over an English phrase. > it's NOT OPEN SOURCE anymore That claim doesn't seem justified at this point. It would be more accurate to say that it is not currently CERTIFIED BY THE OSI as being Open Source -- because the OSI has not yet reviewed the new license. Maybe it will turn out that it is Open Source (as per the OSD), maybe not. Until the license is properly reviewed, we simply don't know.
- FooBarWidget 8y agoNo, that is not what I said.
- Sir_Cmpwn 8y agoThe only people who interpret the term open source differently from the OSI definition are either wrong or deliberately trying to sow discontent in the open source community.
- BFatts 8y agoKudos for recognizing this. We have the OSD: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd THAT is the definition of the term "Open Source" for all intents and purposes. Anyone else's is just a subjective opinion.
- BFatts 8y agoPlease, just read this: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
- tyingq 8y agoOSI seems to recognize they don't own the term. https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...
- jpambrun 8y agoThe authority on word definitions is a dictionary, so that we don't have to argue like that. This definition seems suitable: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open-source https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open-source
- themoonbus 8y agoDictionaries reflect common usage and shared understanding, they're not some infallible source. If the technology community started using the term "open source" in a different way, the dictionary would have to be updated to reflect the new meaning.
- parent5446 8y agoStrange, my dictionary has a different definition: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/open-source https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/open-source
- BFatts 8y agoThe definitions in a dictionary are for general purposes and not used, necessarily, in legal battles. There are legal definitions for things like Intellectual Property, Copyrights, Patents, and Trademarks. These definitions are what will be used when it comes to determining, legally, what open source is - not some wordsmith.
- pdkl95 8y agoNoah Webster did use a strongly prescriptive approach when he wrote his dictionary. His decision to use alternate or simplified spellings of some words is still seen today as the differences between American English and British English. Linguistic prescription - the idea that there is a single "correct" language and other uses of language are somehow inferior or improper - was used to intentionally to give American English it's own identity. Fortunately, most modern dictionaries recognize that languages evolve, using a descriptive approach, updating definitions when needed to reflect how words are actually used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary#Prescriptive_vs._descriptive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary#Prescriptive_vs._de...
- module0000 8y ago>> who do you consider be the authority? That would be Richard Matthew Stallman, the proverbial OG in this entire field.
- nailer 8y agoESR and O Reilly are the OGs for OSS, though they certainly owe a debt to RMS
- gonzo 8y agoNeither invented the term, they just marketed it, because it directly benefitted them. Christine Peterson of the Foresight Institute is the "OG" for the term "open source" as applied to software.
- sangnoir 8y agoYou will find that RMS detests "Open Source"[1]. He's more of a Free software guy, the distinction on user's freedom is important. 1.https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
- AsyncAwait 8y agoI think OP meant in the spiritual sense, free software is the original "open-source". A better one, I'd argue, but that's a different discussion.
- sangnoir 8y agoI was addressing OP's suggestion that RMS is the authority on "Open Source" (which was the question further up the thread). He'd rather have you use/contribute (to) Free software instead.
- AsyncAwait 8y agoYes, I understood that, I assume the OP meant that he is an authority on "open-source" in that "free software" was the original "open-source" and thus "open-source" has RMS a lot to thank for. Otherwise I agree.
- gwbas1c 8y agoStrongly disagree. "Open Source" is not a trademark, no one entity can claim ownership over what defines open source.
- jesseb 8y agoThey're referring specifically to The Open Source Definition[1] outlined by the Open Source Initiative. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition
- BFatts 8y agoThe OSI owns the definition, yes. You are incorrect. See https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd which is what DEFINES open source. The term has been around for 20 years. Your lack of understanding the history doesn't make you any kind of an expert.
- zzzcpan 8y ago> The OSI owns the definition No, OSI doesn't own the definition and doesn't get to define open source. Some people agree with that definition, some don't. Nobody has to though. You can't really own what other people think, you can only try to agree on some definition during interaction. No need to pretend there is some universal truth that they just don't know about. It's an agreement, not truth. And OSI might become irrelevant anyway if it doesn't change in light of recently emerged licenses with more restrictions and doesn't certify them in some way. People will just stick to a handful of popular known licenses and call them open source.
- BFatts 8y agoYes, they do! They are the ones that put together the OSD (https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd) which they derived from the DGSL. No one else has defined open source, not even Richard M. Stallman. His definition is for "Free Software", not "Open Source". So when it comes to who owns the definition, the definitive answer is the OSI. Anything else is just subjective opinions. You must not work. Because businesses that do REAL BUSINESS and use Open Source are happy that there is the OSD and approved OSI licenses. That way, we can make real, LEGAL decisions. For individual developers, they might have a different idea of what the definition is, but the actual reference to what defines it is at: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd Reading that will clarify what open source is and isn't. Anything else is just "free software" and should hunt down the FSF for licenses and such. RMS has a very different opinion on software that DOES NOT WORK for large corporations.
- zzzcpan 8y agoOSD is said subjective opinion, not a universally agreed upon definition.
- mithr 8y agoIn a funny way, I actually don't think ownership of the term, or even who gets to decide that, is what really matters. Mongo can release their software under a license they term "open source", or "special mongo license", or "license X" -- they're under no obligation to use any commonly-accepted licenses or terms. They are certainly free to call themselves "open source" under any new license, and make their arguments as to why they believe that term applies. However, what really matters here is whether, if they choose to do that, developers would still be willing to freely contribute to Mongo's code base, and whether companies who use open source software will continue to use their product. Because _that's_ the reason Mongo cares about being "open source". If most developers and organizations recognize the OSI, with their license approval process, as the arbiters of what constitutes an open source license, then that's the reason the OSI's opinion here really counts. Not because they have some divine right to that term, but simply because if they say "after review, we don't consider this project to be open source by our definition of open source", developers and organizations may hesitate to contribute to, or use, this project.