4 ms·

"open source" is just two words. "open" and "source", the latter being short for source code. I hate to break it to you, but language does not work by having pe

"open source" is just two words. "open" and "source", the latter being short for source code. I hate to break it to you, but language does not work by having people sign statements to declare that you think certain words can only be used in certain contexts that you think are worthy of your cause. The people signing such statements are wasting their time. Their signature does not, and cannot prevent people from using "open" and "source" together, to mean something where the source code is open for inspection, if it doesn't quite fit their over-engineered definition. "open source" and "OSI approved" are simply not synonymous and hopeful wishing will never make it so.

rmmm 8y ago
Bourbon is just a just a name. Champagne is just a region. But whiskeys and wines have to fit narrow qualifications to be Champagne sparkling wine, or Bourbon whiskey. You can, of course, call any software you want open source regardless if it fits the OSI definition, just like you can call any sparkling wine you want Champagne. It doesn't mean you'd be correct in doing so.
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  > But whiskeys and wines have to fit narrow qualifications to be Champagne sparkling wine, or Bourbon whiskey. Isn't that because there's laws and treaties enforcing that? For example the US isn't a signatory to any treaties about Champagne so you do get American wine labelled as Champagne in American shops I believe. There's no law enforcing the OSI's definition of 'open source'.
  - rmmm 8y ago
    I wasn't referring to legality, only replying to the idea that "open" and "source" are "just two words". For an example closer to the subject at hand, the Free Software Foundation makes it clear what does and what does not fit the Free Software definition and that does not rely on the force of law.
    - colechristensen 8y ago
      No, the OSI is acting like it has legal rights to tell people how to use the phrase as much as is possible without actually saying they own the term. This is the problem. They aren't sharing opinions but giving orders.
      - rmmm 8y ago
        Where in the article does the OSI mention or hint at anything about threat of law? The OSI does have the legal right to tell you what they think Open Source is. You have the legal right to ignore it. All OSI did is say "here is our definition of Open Source, and these are the people that agree with us, and you should agree with us too."
  - geofft 8y ago
    The laws and treaties exist because people believe words to have specific meanings, not the other way around. "Bourbon" and "champagne" meant something concrete before there were laws about what could be sold as bourbon and champagne.
- exolymph 8y ago
  Those are just protectionist legalities.
rangerpolitic 8y ago
Like all symbols (e.g., statues, logos, sounds, buildings, etc.), there is no innate meaning for words. We are completely free to attach any arbitrary meaning to a word and use it to convey that meaning. That doesn't mean it is without problems and that's the case with open source. The existing community in which open source is used largely understands "open" to refer to freedom in the broadest means possible. That's the word's denotative sense. It also carries a strong connotative sense in which it is viewed as a positive for business and society. What's happening is that you have a small group of people who desire to benefit from the connotative sense of the word while changing denotative sense. That creates problems when they're not clear that they don't mean open source in the same way that it's understand commonly amongst the technical community. It's underhanded and dishonest. If they want to create a quasi-open source license, that's fine. They simply should be very clear that it's not open source in the traditional/common sense.
- zzzcpan 8y ago
  Common meaning behind open source is not actually OSI approved open source and never was by the way. OSI, for example, rejects public domain, while for pretty much everyone else public domain is open source. Broad freedom is even trickier to talk about. FSF, for example, built an entire ideology on the meaning of freedom.
  - rangerpolitic 8y ago
    Not sure how any of this would contradict anything I've mentioned. Perhaps you don't mean it to do so? If you do, you'll have to explain more because I'm not really following.
  - type0 8y ago
    Public domain isn't open source, that concept doesn't exist in every country.
- sparkie 8y ago
  Copyleft licenses are not necessarily "free in the broadest sense possible." They place certain restrictions on what you must do with software you publish which contains code licensed under such licenses. There are several such copyleft licenses approved by the OSI which clearly do not fit your all-encompassing freedom definition. You also have approved license which place restrictions on use of branding and trademarks, and no effort is made by OSI to restrict licenses to those which also include a patent grant. So if someone creates another kind of copyleft license, which is not quite the same as say, the GPL, but has the same spirit of the GPL, including a patent grant, then are they not allowed to use the term "open source" or "free software" because a protectionist organization declares itself the arbiter?

rmmm 8y ago

Bourbon is just a just a name. Champagne is just a region. But whiskeys and wines have to fit narrow qualifications to be Champagne sparkling wine, or Bourbon whiskey. You can, of course, call any software you want open source regardless if it fits the OSI definition, just like you can call any sparkling wine you want Champagne. It doesn't mean you'd be correct in doing so.

chrisseaton 8y ago
> But whiskeys and wines have to fit narrow qualifications to be Champagne sparkling wine, or Bourbon whiskey. Isn't that because there's laws and treaties enforcing that? For example the US isn't a signatory to any treaties about Champagne so you do get American wine labelled as Champagne in American shops I believe. There's no law enforcing the OSI's definition of 'open source'.
- rmmm 8y ago
  I wasn't referring to legality, only replying to the idea that "open" and "source" are "just two words". For an example closer to the subject at hand, the Free Software Foundation makes it clear what does and what does not fit the Free Software definition and that does not rely on the force of law.
  - colechristensen 8y ago
    No, the OSI is acting like it has legal rights to tell people how to use the phrase as much as is possible without actually saying they own the term. This is the problem. They aren't sharing opinions but giving orders.
    - rmmm 8y ago
      Where in the article does the OSI mention or hint at anything about threat of law? The OSI does have the legal right to tell you what they think Open Source is. You have the legal right to ignore it. All OSI did is say "here is our definition of Open Source, and these are the people that agree with us, and you should agree with us too."
- geofft 8y ago
  The laws and treaties exist because people believe words to have specific meanings, not the other way around. "Bourbon" and "champagne" meant something concrete before there were laws about what could be sold as bourbon and champagne.
exolymph 8y ago
Those are just protectionist legalities.

rangerpolitic 8y ago

Like all symbols (e.g., statues, logos, sounds, buildings, etc.), there is no innate meaning for words. We are completely free to attach any arbitrary meaning to a word and use it to convey that meaning. That doesn't mean it is without problems and that's the case with open source. The existing community in which open source is used largely understands "open" to refer to freedom in the broadest means possible. That's the word's denotative sense. It also carries a strong connotative sense in which it is viewed as a positive for business and society. What's happening is that you have a small group of people who desire to benefit from the connotative sense of the word while changing denotative sense. That creates problems when they're not clear that they don't mean open source in the same way that it's understand commonly amongst the technical community. It's underhanded and dishonest. If they want to create a quasi-open source license, that's fine. They simply should be very clear that it's not open source in the traditional/common sense.

zzzcpan 8y ago
Common meaning behind open source is not actually OSI approved open source and never was by the way. OSI, for example, rejects public domain, while for pretty much everyone else public domain is open source. Broad freedom is even trickier to talk about. FSF, for example, built an entire ideology on the meaning of freedom.
- rangerpolitic 8y ago
  Not sure how any of this would contradict anything I've mentioned. Perhaps you don't mean it to do so? If you do, you'll have to explain more because I'm not really following.
- type0 8y ago
  Public domain isn't open source, that concept doesn't exist in every country.
sparkie 8y ago
Copyleft licenses are not necessarily "free in the broadest sense possible." They place certain restrictions on what you must do with software you publish which contains code licensed under such licenses. There are several such copyleft licenses approved by the OSI which clearly do not fit your all-encompassing freedom definition. You also have approved license which place restrictions on use of branding and trademarks, and no effort is made by OSI to restrict licenses to those which also include a patent grant. So if someone creates another kind of copyleft license, which is not quite the same as say, the GPL, but has the same spirit of the GPL, including a patent grant, then are they not allowed to use the term "open source" or "free software" because a protectionist organization declares itself the arbiter?