4 ms·

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 w

by 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.

by rmmm 8y ago

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.