4 ms·

> The FSF and the OSI don't own what 'open source' means, of course - the term predates them and comes from intelligence. Ref please? The FSF was certainly a

by gwd 7y ago

> The FSF and the OSI don't own what 'open source' means, of course - the term predates them and comes from intelligence. Ref please? The FSF was certainly around pushing for "free software" long before "open source" was commonly used to refer to copyleft / permissive licenses. And the sole purpose for OSI's existence is exactly to define what is and is not "open source". In any case, it is very important to define terminology and protect its use. The goal of "open source" is certainly not to simply let people look at the source, but to let people use the source in certain ways. People have thought long and hard about exactly what the minimum standards are to consider something "free software" or "open source". You can find the core criteria for OSI here: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd And the "Four Freedoms" for the Free Software Foundation here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

chrisseaton 7y ago
> Ref please? Both ESR and the OSI will tell you this. For example http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html > Yes, we're aware of the specialized meaning "open source" has in the intelligence community. This is a feature, not a bug. The OSI tried and failed to trademark 'open source' - because it's simply a description. https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p... > We have discovered that there is virtually no chance that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office would register the mark "open source"; the mark is too descriptive Maybe it turned out to be a bug after all!
- gwd 7y ago
  While ESR's link establishes precedence, it doesn't actually tell me what it means in an intelligence context. From Wikipedia [1]: > Open-source intelligence (OSINT) is data collected from publicly available sources to be used in an intelligence context. IOW, the "source" in "open-source context" isn't actually talking about "source" as in "source code", but "source" as in "source of information". Not really related. Whether or not they could trademark the term, when people in our community say "open source", they specifically mean something which matches OSI or FSF's definitions. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_intelligence
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    > IOW, the "source" in "open-source context" isn't actually talking about "source" as in "source code", but "source" as in "source of information". Not really related. ESR says specifically that it's related - he says the relation is a 'feature' of the name, even.
    - pseudalopex 7y ago
      Some features start as happy accidents. ESR was the president of the OSI when it published the Open Source Definition and applied for the trademark. Justifying a weaker definition can’t be why he called it a feature.
wmf 7y ago
OSI hasn't been doing a good job. They're trying to turn it around but only time will tell.
tannhaeuser 7y ago
> Ref please? Here you go: http://hyperlogos.org/article/Who-Invented-Term-Open-Source http://hyperlogos.org/article/Who-Invented-Term-Open-Source

by gwd 7y ago

chrisseaton 7y ago

> Ref please? Both ESR and the OSI will tell you this. For example http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html > Yes, we're aware of the specialized meaning "open source" has in the intelligence community. This is a feature, not a bug. The OSI tried and failed to trademark 'open source' - because it's simply a description. https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p... > We have discovered that there is virtually no chance that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office would register the mark "open source"; the mark is too descriptive Maybe it turned out to be a bug after all!

gwd 7y ago
While ESR's link establishes precedence, it doesn't actually tell me what it means in an intelligence context. From Wikipedia [1]: > Open-source intelligence (OSINT) is data collected from publicly available sources to be used in an intelligence context. IOW, the "source" in "open-source context" isn't actually talking about "source" as in "source code", but "source" as in "source of information". Not really related. Whether or not they could trademark the term, when people in our community say "open source", they specifically mean something which matches OSI or FSF's definitions. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_intelligence
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  > IOW, the "source" in "open-source context" isn't actually talking about "source" as in "source code", but "source" as in "source of information". Not really related. ESR says specifically that it's related - he says the relation is a 'feature' of the name, even.
  - pseudalopex 7y ago
    Some features start as happy accidents. ESR was the president of the OSI when it published the Open Source Definition and applied for the trademark. Justifying a weaker definition can’t be why he called it a feature.

wmf 7y ago

OSI hasn't been doing a good job. They're trying to turn it around but only time will tell.

tannhaeuser 7y ago

> Ref please? Here you go: http://hyperlogos.org/article/Who-Invented-Term-Open-Source http://hyperlogos.org/article/Who-Invented-Term-Open-Source