4 ms·

1. The idea that OSI seriously thinks it gets to decide what counts as open source is laughable. This is akin to Linux being released for the first time, and Mi

1. The idea that OSI seriously thinks it gets to decide what counts as open source is laughable. This is akin to Linux being released for the first time, and Microsoft issuing a warning that they have not yet verified that Linux is a "real" operating system, and to stay tuned for their final judgement. The arrogance here is hilarious. I've been working in open source for years and I've never, ever heard of OSI. 2. All "open source" really means is that the source code is available in some way/shape/form, with no implication whatsoever made about the license of said code. "Free and open source" on the other hand implies a permissive license. 3. I don't know anything about the MongoDB license before or after these changes, I just despise the tone of this message. So to recap. OSI is just some random organization with no bearing on what society decides open source is or isn't, and therefore what they say DOES NOT MATTER.

dx87 8y ago
MongDB submitted their license for approval, so obviously it matters to them. Whether you think it matters or not is irrelevant, you're just some random HN user with no bearing on what society decides open source is or isn't.
joshsimmons 8y ago
Open source is a term of art with an agreed upon definition, and it has been for 20 years which, not-so-coincidentally, is also when the Open Source Initiative was founded. The fact that you've never heard of OSI means we've been doing our job well enough that you've never needed to know about it. The fact that you've never heard of OSI does NOT mean that it's not legitimate, and frankly, that kind of rhetoric is just silly.
- PuffinBlue 8y ago
  If this is held true and everyone agrees it, all this conversation/wider thread has served to show is that the term has reached 'genericization'. The OSI can claim/define what is wishes to but in practice it has lost authorship of the 'open source' definition. Just like Google/Xerox/Kleenex/Taser/Bubble Wrap/Dumpster/Escalator/thermos/Chapstick/Frisbee/Photoshop et al.
  - sam0x17 8y ago
    That's exactly the point I was trying to make.
- mr_toad 8y ago
  A term of art is a description not a prescription.
- sam0x17 8y ago
  Something is "closed source" if you literally can't get a copy of the source code. What is the antonym of "closed source"? The opposite of "closed source" is "open source" and it means that the general public can get a copy of the source code. "A permissive open source license" on the other hand implies the things that OSI is trying to confer on the word "open source".
- sam0x17 8y ago
  "Open Source" is also a term that predates OSI https://hyperlogos.org/article/Who-Invented-Term-Open-Source https://hyperlogos.org/article/Who-Invented-Term-Open-Source
- sam0x17 8y ago
  No, but the fact that OSI is just a random 501(c) that didn't even invent the term "open source" does.
papaf 8y ago
The arrogance here is hilarious. I've been working in open source for years and I've never, ever heard of OSI. I agree with this statement but not in the way that you meant it.
BFatts 8y ago
You are so off base. You may have been writing source-available software, but it's not open source unless you know the OSI's definition. THAT is what everybody abides by to make sure that the licenses are fair and in the spirit of open source software. Open source is an agreed upon definition for software provided under an OSI or FSF approved license. To state anything else shows that you DON'T understand what open source is. You see, for corporations to operate they follow a set of rules. Rules designed to keep them on the right side of the law. As such, without the OSD we wouldn't have any rules to understand what open source is. Do you understand that? Open source isn't just for hobbyist programmers, it's used to run the worlds biggest software platforms.
- sqrt17 8y ago
  I can't tell whether this is serious or sarcastic. It lacks the "/s" at the end, so I'll assume that you're serious. > but it's not open source unless you know the OSI's definition. > Open source is an agreed upon definition for software provided under an OSI or FSF approved license. Open source software (by today's standards) existed before the OSI or even the term "Open Source" existed - the creators of BSD *nix, X11 and TeX all chose a liberal, open source license before a cabal around Eric S. Raymond would decide on a definition of Open Source and the term itself. The idea came after the actual thing existed, and the definition after the idea. So it would be weird to call something Open Source that doesn't fit the Open Source Definition (because the latter was conceived together with the term), but it would absolutely be possible for a software/license to be Open Source without knowing about the Open Source Definition, as is the case with BSD, X11, TeX and many Free Software programs. Next, there is the idea of the Open Source Initiative approving Open Source licenses, which is a good thing because people can trust any OSI-approved license to be an Open Source license. However, not every Open Source license is OSI-approved, because OSI applies additional criteria (e.g. being reusable). So, yes, it's possible for a license to be Open Source but not OSI approved, when it fits the Open Source Definition but hasn't been submitted, not reviewed, or doesn't meet the additional criteria set forth by the OSI. The fact that your employer's legal department will mistrust your personal judgement of software fitting the Open Source Definition (for perfectly sensible reasons) doesn't make software not Open Source (any more than a US State can decide to make Pi a rational number or to make dolphins be fish).
FooBarWidget 8y ago
Regarding number 2: by that definition of yours, Microsoft Shared Source Initiative in the early 2000s was also "open source". See the problem with not having a precise and standardized definition?
- sam0x17 8y ago
  People wouldn't say "free and open source" or "a permissive open source license" if "open source" was already sufficiently descriptive, so I think in the back of their minds people already believe what I put forward here, at least a little bit. If the source code is available to the general public, it is open source. The source code is in the open. If a company decides to release source code with no license at all to redistribute or modify, solely so people can verify that their software does what they say it does, they still should be applauded for at least sharing their code rather than keeping it closed source, and what they would be doing would in my book still be "open source". Once again, if the source code is open, it is open source. If this wasn't the common definition, then people would never say "permissive open source license" because it would be implied. Instead we have created this environment where if you aren't willing to "go all the way" and give people the right to modify/redistribute your code in some permissive way, you are basically pressured to not release your code at all. As a community we would have access to more code bases if this wasn't true. I totally agree that companies should embrace permissive open source licenses, but when that doesn't make sense, I totally think they should embrace non-permissive open source licenses. This is a minority opinion, however.
jahewson 8y ago
> All "open source" really means is that the source code is available in some way/shape/form No.
bunderbunder 8y ago
> All "open source" really means is that the source code is available in some way/shape/form I think that, in practice, there are very few people who have been around the block a few times, and still see things that way. As a concrete example, consider the Microsoft Shared Source Initiative. That particular (arguable) boodoggle is the closest I can think of to a real test of whether there's a broad consensus on what "open source" really means. My impression is that most everyone who's looked into it agrees that a couple of the SSI family of licenses are "open source", and the rest are not, and that they generally agree on exactly which ones are and are not.
kazinator 8y ago
I would say that if "some way/shape/form" means I have to be a licensed user of the executable code who signs an NDA in blood to get the source code, and may not even share modifications with others who have similarly obtained the code, then it's probably not "open source". It's just "source". Code that is available because someone leaked it is also available in some way/shape/form, yet probably doesn't count as "open source". Not every situation in which second or third party outsiders have access to source code is "open". We don't have to accept OSI's exact definition with all its quirks (WTF is "technology-neutral"), but the salient features of OSI's definition jive with the widespread understanding that open source allows basically allows free redistribution and use of a program in source code form, with or without modifications.

dx87 8y ago

MongDB submitted their license for approval, so obviously it matters to them. Whether you think it matters or not is irrelevant, you're just some random HN user with no bearing on what society decides open source is or isn't.

joshsimmons 8y ago

Open source is a term of art with an agreed upon definition, and it has been for 20 years which, not-so-coincidentally, is also when the Open Source Initiative was founded. The fact that you've never heard of OSI means we've been doing our job well enough that you've never needed to know about it. The fact that you've never heard of OSI does NOT mean that it's not legitimate, and frankly, that kind of rhetoric is just silly.

PuffinBlue 8y ago
If this is held true and everyone agrees it, all this conversation/wider thread has served to show is that the term has reached 'genericization'. The OSI can claim/define what is wishes to but in practice it has lost authorship of the 'open source' definition. Just like Google/Xerox/Kleenex/Taser/Bubble Wrap/Dumpster/Escalator/thermos/Chapstick/Frisbee/Photoshop et al.
- sam0x17 8y ago
  That's exactly the point I was trying to make.
mr_toad 8y ago
A term of art is a description not a prescription.
sam0x17 8y ago
Something is "closed source" if you literally can't get a copy of the source code. What is the antonym of "closed source"? The opposite of "closed source" is "open source" and it means that the general public can get a copy of the source code. "A permissive open source license" on the other hand implies the things that OSI is trying to confer on the word "open source".
sam0x17 8y ago
"Open Source" is also a term that predates OSI https://hyperlogos.org/article/Who-Invented-Term-Open-Source https://hyperlogos.org/article/Who-Invented-Term-Open-Source
sam0x17 8y ago
No, but the fact that OSI is just a random 501(c) that didn't even invent the term "open source" does.

papaf 8y ago

The arrogance here is hilarious. I've been working in open source for years and I've never, ever heard of OSI. I agree with this statement but not in the way that you meant it.

BFatts 8y ago

You are so off base. You may have been writing source-available software, but it's not open source unless you know the OSI's definition. THAT is what everybody abides by to make sure that the licenses are fair and in the spirit of open source software. Open source is an agreed upon definition for software provided under an OSI or FSF approved license. To state anything else shows that you DON'T understand what open source is. You see, for corporations to operate they follow a set of rules. Rules designed to keep them on the right side of the law. As such, without the OSD we wouldn't have any rules to understand what open source is. Do you understand that? Open source isn't just for hobbyist programmers, it's used to run the worlds biggest software platforms.

sqrt17 8y ago
I can't tell whether this is serious or sarcastic. It lacks the "/s" at the end, so I'll assume that you're serious. > but it's not open source unless you know the OSI's definition. > Open source is an agreed upon definition for software provided under an OSI or FSF approved license. Open source software (by today's standards) existed before the OSI or even the term "Open Source" existed - the creators of BSD *nix, X11 and TeX all chose a liberal, open source license before a cabal around Eric S. Raymond would decide on a definition of Open Source and the term itself. The idea came after the actual thing existed, and the definition after the idea. So it would be weird to call something Open Source that doesn't fit the Open Source Definition (because the latter was conceived together with the term), but it would absolutely be possible for a software/license to be Open Source without knowing about the Open Source Definition, as is the case with BSD, X11, TeX and many Free Software programs. Next, there is the idea of the Open Source Initiative approving Open Source licenses, which is a good thing because people can trust any OSI-approved license to be an Open Source license. However, not every Open Source license is OSI-approved, because OSI applies additional criteria (e.g. being reusable). So, yes, it's possible for a license to be Open Source but not OSI approved, when it fits the Open Source Definition but hasn't been submitted, not reviewed, or doesn't meet the additional criteria set forth by the OSI. The fact that your employer's legal department will mistrust your personal judgement of software fitting the Open Source Definition (for perfectly sensible reasons) doesn't make software not Open Source (any more than a US State can decide to make Pi a rational number or to make dolphins be fish).

FooBarWidget 8y ago

Regarding number 2: by that definition of yours, Microsoft Shared Source Initiative in the early 2000s was also "open source". See the problem with not having a precise and standardized definition?

sam0x17 8y ago
People wouldn't say "free and open source" or "a permissive open source license" if "open source" was already sufficiently descriptive, so I think in the back of their minds people already believe what I put forward here, at least a little bit. If the source code is available to the general public, it is open source. The source code is in the open. If a company decides to release source code with no license at all to redistribute or modify, solely so people can verify that their software does what they say it does, they still should be applauded for at least sharing their code rather than keeping it closed source, and what they would be doing would in my book still be "open source". Once again, if the source code is open, it is open source. If this wasn't the common definition, then people would never say "permissive open source license" because it would be implied. Instead we have created this environment where if you aren't willing to "go all the way" and give people the right to modify/redistribute your code in some permissive way, you are basically pressured to not release your code at all. As a community we would have access to more code bases if this wasn't true. I totally agree that companies should embrace permissive open source licenses, but when that doesn't make sense, I totally think they should embrace non-permissive open source licenses. This is a minority opinion, however.

jahewson 8y ago

> All "open source" really means is that the source code is available in some way/shape/form No.

bunderbunder 8y ago

> All "open source" really means is that the source code is available in some way/shape/form I think that, in practice, there are very few people who have been around the block a few times, and still see things that way. As a concrete example, consider the Microsoft Shared Source Initiative. That particular (arguable) boodoggle is the closest I can think of to a real test of whether there's a broad consensus on what "open source" really means. My impression is that most everyone who's looked into it agrees that a couple of the SSI family of licenses are "open source", and the rest are not, and that they generally agree on exactly which ones are and are not.

kazinator 8y ago

I would say that if "some way/shape/form" means I have to be a licensed user of the executable code who signs an NDA in blood to get the source code, and may not even share modifications with others who have similarly obtained the code, then it's probably not "open source". It's just "source". Code that is available because someone leaked it is also available in some way/shape/form, yet probably doesn't count as "open source". Not every situation in which second or third party outsiders have access to source code is "open". We don't have to accept OSI's exact definition with all its quirks (WTF is "technology-neutral"), but the salient features of OSI's definition jive with the widespread understanding that open source allows basically allows free redistribution and use of a program in source code form, with or without modifications.