6 ms·

So 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 impl

by vasco 8y ago

So 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 ago
Only 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 ago
  As 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 ago
    If 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 ago
No, that is not what I said.
Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
The 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 ago
  Kudos 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 ago
Please, just read this: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd

by vasco 8y ago

sangnoir 8y ago

Only 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 ago
As 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 ago
  If 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 ago

No, that is not what I said.

Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago

The 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 ago
Kudos 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 ago

Please, just read this: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd