> The phrase "Open Source" is not necessarily just the summation of the constituent words "open" and "source". "Open Source" is a unique concept with a unique m

> The phrase "Open Source" is not necessarily just the summation of the constituent words "open" and "source". "Open Source" is a unique concept with a unique meaning... and the de-facto definition of that concept, is the OSD[1]. The use of the phrase "Open Source" predates the very _existence_ of the OSD by years[1], so it's somewhat laughable to claim that people are "trying to muddy the waters and being intentionally disingenuous" for simply not complying with the OSI's attempt to retroactively redefine the phrase to mean something other than the conventional and obvious meaning. [1] The OSI was formed in February of 1998. The OSD had been drafted 9 months prior, in mid 1997. If, as claimed, the meaning of the phrase "Open Source" sprung forth from the ether with the OSD, then why, pray tell, is it dead easy to find uses prior to 1997 in which people are obviously referring to the ability to see the source-code and obviously _not_ referring to the ability to exploit it commercially? For instance, here's a post from 1993 on comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32 (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32/WoBvPB0U9Co/wXfpq5nEJTYJ https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.os.ms-windows.pro...): > If a developer wants money for shareware, paying the fee should automatically grant the user a copy of the source code for their personal use. Restrictions could prohibit modifying and redistributing binaries, but should allow distribution of "deltas" for bug fixes, etc. > Anyone else into "Source Code for NT"? The tools and stuff I'm writing for NT will be released with source. If there are "proprietary" tricks that MS wants to hide, the only way to subvert their hoarding is to post source that illuminates (and I don't mean disclosing stuff obtained by a non-disclosure agreement). Open Source is best for everyone in the long run. Or this email from 1996 (http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html): > Caldera Announces Open Source for DOS. > ... > Caldera believes an open source code model benefits the industry in many ways. > ... > Individuals can use OpenDOS source for personal use at no cost. Individuals and organizations desiring to commercially redistribute Caldera OpenDOS must acquire a license with an associated small fee. I guess somebody should travel back in time and tell them they're "muddying the waters and being intentionally disingenuous"? Or maybe, just maybe, it's the OSI that muddied the waters by trying to redefine a term to add their own ideological baggage to it.