4 ms·

There's no fee, and no need to submit any code. The entire approval process is documented on our website: https://opensource.org/approval https://opensource.or

There's no fee, and no need to submit any code. The entire approval process is documented on our website: https://opensource.org/approval https://opensource.org/approval

JaimeThompson 8y ago
I don't see anything on that page with gives you, the OSI, the legal right to declare things as being opensource or not. You categorically stated it wasn't opensource. Had you stated that in your opinion it wasn't opensource it would be different.
- vmbrasseur 8y ago
  Please see this comment for more information: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18231270 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18231270
- enraged_camel 8y ago
  >>I don't see anything on that page with gives you, the OSI, the legal right to declare things as being opensource or not. Sorry, who said anything about a "legal" right? Maybe you're reading too much into the OP's comment. Mongo submitted an application at OSI, and OSI is saying that currently, they don't consider Mongo open-source, based on their own definition. Perhaps you're just confused?
- BFatts 8y ago
  You sound like you're arguing just to argue. Do you have a valid point? Their OSD is what defines open source. You didn't define it. It wasn't defined at some party or demo-conf. It was defined by the OSI - they defined Open Source Software. Arguing otherwise shows a serious lack of OSS knowledge.
  - cesarb 8y ago
    > Their OSD is what defines open source. You didn't define it. It wasn't defined at some party or demo-conf. It was defined by the OSI - they defined Open Source Software. Isn't the OSD basically the DFSG? Therefore one could argue that it was actually defined by Debian, not the OSI.
    - BFatts 8y ago
      Okay, pedantic... totally pedantic. It is derived from the open DFSG, so NO Debian does not own it. Don't be such a pedant - it doesn't help the conversation.
  - nemo44x 8y ago
    It was literally defined at a party. Or a strategy session to be precise.
    - BFatts 8y ago
      Big difference between a "party" and a strategy session. So it wasn't literally defined at a party. And, even if it were, I guess it doesn't matter. The OSI owns the OSD which is what defines what Open Source is.
  - tannhaeuser 8y ago
    You may be talking past another. I guess what GP was asking is whether OSI has a trademark, copyright, or something else for the term "open source"? The term "open source" has been generically used for much longer than OSI's existence.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      The term "open source" has been generically used for much longer than OSI's existence. I've seen this claim before, but could never find any evidence of it actually being applied to software before OSI came around.
  - JaimeThompson 8y ago
    Nope. I just dislike it when someone tries to claim control over a simple English words. They don't have a trademark on open source so they don't get the right to go around saying what is / isn't open source.
    - sascha_sl 8y ago
      They made up the term and their definition is what most people associate with "open source". This is not a legal right, it's just "let's not redefine words because we don't like their common meaning".
  - shakna 8y ago
    > It wasn't defined at some party or demo-conf. Actually, that's exactly where it was defined. > I brainstormed this with some Silicon Valley fans of Linux (including Larry Augustin of the Linux International board of directors) the day after my meeting with Netscape (Feb 5th). We kicked around and discarded several alternatives, and we came up with a replacement label we all liked: "open source". [0] Also note, that the OSI didn't exist when they came up with this new label. [0] http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html
- ubernostrum 8y ago
  I don't see anything that gives you, JaimeThompson, the legal right to declare what others can and can't say.
frockington 8y ago
Is it your companies official stance that they have the sole right to determine what is OPEN SOURCE code? From an outsider who reads this phrase in countless contexts, this feels like an incredibly naive and non-legally binding opinion
kemitchell 8y ago
The process I underwent for The License Zero Reciprocal Public License last year, and the process described to me by participants affiliated with OSI during those discussions, did not match the process described on the page you linked at the time, especially its "What Will Happen" section. At least one participating member of the board seemed to be learning, as well. Best I can tell, the process page was prepared by a former board member pushing to reform the process and make it transparent. It was and remains aspirational. But those aspirations aren't shared by remaining participants with sway. The most straightforward summary of the process I received was that discussion proceeds on the mailing list until it reaches consensus, and then it's entirely within the board's discretion what it does or does not do. It was also written repeatedly that the board may not approve professionally drafted, novel, OSD-conformant licenses, for unspecified policy reasons.

There's no fee, and no need to submit any code. The entire approval process is documented on our website: https://opensource.org/approval https://opensource.org/approval

JaimeThompson 8y ago

I don't see anything on that page with gives you, the OSI, the legal right to declare things as being opensource or not. You categorically stated it wasn't opensource. Had you stated that in your opinion it wasn't opensource it would be different.

vmbrasseur 8y ago
Please see this comment for more information: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18231270 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18231270
enraged_camel 8y ago
>>I don't see anything on that page with gives you, the OSI, the legal right to declare things as being opensource or not. Sorry, who said anything about a "legal" right? Maybe you're reading too much into the OP's comment. Mongo submitted an application at OSI, and OSI is saying that currently, they don't consider Mongo open-source, based on their own definition. Perhaps you're just confused?
BFatts 8y ago
You sound like you're arguing just to argue. Do you have a valid point? Their OSD is what defines open source. You didn't define it. It wasn't defined at some party or demo-conf. It was defined by the OSI - they defined Open Source Software. Arguing otherwise shows a serious lack of OSS knowledge.
- cesarb 8y ago
  > Their OSD is what defines open source. You didn't define it. It wasn't defined at some party or demo-conf. It was defined by the OSI - they defined Open Source Software. Isn't the OSD basically the DFSG? Therefore one could argue that it was actually defined by Debian, not the OSI.
  - BFatts 8y ago
    Okay, pedantic... totally pedantic. It is derived from the open DFSG, so NO Debian does not own it. Don't be such a pedant - it doesn't help the conversation.
- nemo44x 8y ago
  It was literally defined at a party. Or a strategy session to be precise.
  - BFatts 8y ago
    Big difference between a "party" and a strategy session. So it wasn't literally defined at a party. And, even if it were, I guess it doesn't matter. The OSI owns the OSD which is what defines what Open Source is.
- tannhaeuser 8y ago
  You may be talking past another. I guess what GP was asking is whether OSI has a trademark, copyright, or something else for the term "open source"? The term "open source" has been generically used for much longer than OSI's existence.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    The term "open source" has been generically used for much longer than OSI's existence. I've seen this claim before, but could never find any evidence of it actually being applied to software before OSI came around.
- JaimeThompson 8y ago
  Nope. I just dislike it when someone tries to claim control over a simple English words. They don't have a trademark on open source so they don't get the right to go around saying what is / isn't open source.
  - sascha_sl 8y ago
    They made up the term and their definition is what most people associate with "open source". This is not a legal right, it's just "let's not redefine words because we don't like their common meaning".
- shakna 8y ago
  > It wasn't defined at some party or demo-conf. Actually, that's exactly where it was defined. > I brainstormed this with some Silicon Valley fans of Linux (including Larry Augustin of the Linux International board of directors) the day after my meeting with Netscape (Feb 5th). We kicked around and discarded several alternatives, and we came up with a replacement label we all liked: "open source". [0] Also note, that the OSI didn't exist when they came up with this new label. [0] http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html
ubernostrum 8y ago
I don't see anything that gives you, JaimeThompson, the legal right to declare what others can and can't say.

frockington 8y ago

Is it your companies official stance that they have the sole right to determine what is OPEN SOURCE code? From an outsider who reads this phrase in countless contexts, this feels like an incredibly naive and non-legally binding opinion

kemitchell 8y ago

The process I underwent for The License Zero Reciprocal Public License last year, and the process described to me by participants affiliated with OSI during those discussions, did not match the process described on the page you linked at the time, especially its "What Will Happen" section. At least one participating member of the board seemed to be learning, as well. Best I can tell, the process page was prepared by a former board member pushing to reform the process and make it transparent. It was and remains aspirational. But those aspirations aren't shared by remaining participants with sway. The most straightforward summary of the process I received was that discussion proceeds on the mailing list until it reaches consensus, and then it's entirely within the board's discretion what it does or does not do. It was also written repeatedly that the board may not approve professionally drafted, novel, OSD-conformant licenses, for unspecified policy reasons.