3 ms·
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 ope
by 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 agoPlease 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 agoYou 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 agoOkay, 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 agoIt was literally defined at a party. Or a strategy session to be precise.
- BFatts 8y agoBig 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 agoYou 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 agoThe 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 agoNope. 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 agoThey 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 agoI don't see anything that gives you, JaimeThompson, the legal right to declare what others can and can't say.