3 ms·

The OSI is the founder and DEFINER of the term "open source" so saying that it's open source without an OSI approved license is like saying your app's an approv

by BFatts 8y ago

The OSI is the founder and DEFINER of the term "open source" so saying that it's open source without an OSI approved license is like saying your app's an approved Android app without it first being reviewed. Get it?? Open Source is a term coined by the OSI.

coldtea 8y ago
>Open Source is a term coined by the OSI. No, it's not: http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html And even if it was, popular terms reach beyond the persons/organizations that coined them. Unless it's trademarked, it's just a term all kinds of people use, many of which don't know/care about OSI. In fact: https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...
- BFatts 8y ago
  Okay, pedantry... If you want to be specific: https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source-software https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source... But it was done coincidentally with the discussions that ultimately led to the OSI and the OSD. >> Bruce Perens has applied to register "open source" as a trademark and hold it through Software in the Public Interest. The trademark conditions will be known as the ``Open Source Definition'', essentially the same as the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Your own reference contains this text, btw.
  - gonzo 8y ago
    Bruce attempted to register a certification mark (a type of trademark), but the application lapsed in 1999 after OSI discovered that there was virtually zero chance of registering the term "open source" as a mark, as the term is too descriptive.
nemo44x 8y ago
To be precise, Christine Peterson coined it. The OSI was formed very shortly after.
- BFatts 8y ago
  That is true - the OSI didn't coin it. But Bruce Perens of the OSI trademarked Open Source with the definition as the rules to apply it. I think that basically puts to rest the question of who "owns" Open Source.
  - gonzo 8y ago
    Bruce attempted to register a certification mark (a type of trademark), but the application lapsed in 1999 after OSI discovered that there was virtually zero chance of registering the term "open source" as a mark, as the term is too descriptive. OSI has "OSI Certified" as a registered trademark (a certification mark).
Doctor_Fegg 8y ago
No. Even if you accept the Open Source Definition as the sole arbiter of what's open source, "approved by the OSI" is not one of its 10 criteria. It is possible for a licence to meet the OSD whether or not the OSI has approved it.
jazzyjackson 8y ago
Ok so they coined it but if they wanted to police who used the term they should have trademarked it and sued everyone who used it without their approval. Of course they wouldn't get very far with that strategy, but then they shouldn't expect to eat that cake.
tomnipotent 8y ago
> The OSI is the founder and DEFINER of the term "open source" No it's not. It's some random group of people that usurped the term and tried to take control of the marketing of a larger movement that was already underway and would have happened with or without them.

by BFatts 8y ago

coldtea 8y ago

>Open Source is a term coined by the OSI. No, it's not: http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html And even if it was, popular terms reach beyond the persons/organizations that coined them. Unless it's trademarked, it's just a term all kinds of people use, many of which don't know/care about OSI. In fact: https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...

BFatts 8y ago
Okay, pedantry... If you want to be specific: https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source-software https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source... But it was done coincidentally with the discussions that ultimately led to the OSI and the OSD. >> Bruce Perens has applied to register "open source" as a trademark and hold it through Software in the Public Interest. The trademark conditions will be known as the ``Open Source Definition'', essentially the same as the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Your own reference contains this text, btw.
- gonzo 8y ago
  Bruce attempted to register a certification mark (a type of trademark), but the application lapsed in 1999 after OSI discovered that there was virtually zero chance of registering the term "open source" as a mark, as the term is too descriptive.

nemo44x 8y ago

To be precise, Christine Peterson coined it. The OSI was formed very shortly after.

BFatts 8y ago
That is true - the OSI didn't coin it. But Bruce Perens of the OSI trademarked Open Source with the definition as the rules to apply it. I think that basically puts to rest the question of who "owns" Open Source.
- gonzo 8y ago
  Bruce attempted to register a certification mark (a type of trademark), but the application lapsed in 1999 after OSI discovered that there was virtually zero chance of registering the term "open source" as a mark, as the term is too descriptive. OSI has "OSI Certified" as a registered trademark (a certification mark).

Doctor_Fegg 8y ago

No. Even if you accept the Open Source Definition as the sole arbiter of what's open source, "approved by the OSI" is not one of its 10 criteria. It is possible for a licence to meet the OSD whether or not the OSI has approved it.

jazzyjackson 8y ago

Ok so they coined it but if they wanted to police who used the term they should have trademarked it and sued everyone who used it without their approval. Of course they wouldn't get very far with that strategy, but then they shouldn't expect to eat that cake.

tomnipotent 8y ago

> The OSI is the founder and DEFINER of the term "open source" No it's not. It's some random group of people that usurped the term and tried to take control of the marketing of a larger movement that was already underway and would have happened with or without them.