3 ms·

Regardless of how valid anyone sees your "but", it's not the extent of claim made in the comment I replied to. Both the comment and the article make a very spe

by cxr 7y ago

Regardless of how valid anyone sees your "but", it's not the extent of claim made in the comment I replied to. Both the comment and the article make a very specific claim about the term "open source": the (frequently encountered) falsehood that the term "open source" preceded OSI, and that the OSI made it their prerogative to wrench it from the mouths (keyboards) of programmers so as to suit the OSI's desires. Not only is that not true, it doesn't seem to be accompanied by any appreciation of the irony involved here, considering that the exact opposite thing is what's actually going on—by the folks who are complaining about retconning language!

kemitchell 7y ago
"Open" was a high-froth marketing term in computing long before OSI came around. "Open source" itself was and is commonly used in intelligence. Christine Patterson, who proposed "open source" at the freeware summit, has written that she mentioned it to a friend in marketing at the time, and the friend advised against. "Open" was too played out, meant everything and nothing.
- cxr 7y ago
  This sounds like a retort to OSI's "open source", but it isn't. It contradicts nothing and does much less to support the "other" side than it seems to. How many times are the goalposts going to move in this conversation? > Christine Patterson Peterson.
  - kemitchell 7y ago
    Thanks for the typo correction. On "open", see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Software_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Software_Foundation https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p... "Open" wasn't greenfield. "Open" was a marketing buzzword in computing all through the eighties.
    - cxr 7y ago
      > This sounds like a retort to OSI's "open source", but it isn't.
      - kemitchell 7y ago
        That's not an argument, it's a naked conclusion about an argument. If you'd like to send a counter-argument, I'd be happy to read it. If you'd prefer to play referee, I've no interest.
        cxr 7y ago
        Here's a breakdown of this particular bait-and-switch: The first, strong-but-indefensible claim is made—the one that argues "open source" was in play and that there was some "original" meaning that predates OSI and their attempt to co-opt the term. This is disputed. We then see a retreat from out of the bailey into the motte, where we appeal to the "intuitive" understanding (presumably first mover now doesn't matter). Later we're back somewhere in between, except this time musing that perhaps "open" didn't mean anything at the time the Foresight group decided to embroider "open source" on their crest. In summary, the only thing we've seen is a bad argument that was subsequently vacated, leaving a void in its place plus nothing more substantial than vague suggestions that some other arguments exist that can quash OSI's stake in the term "open source". So you'll have to forgive me if I haven't yet responded with a counter-argument that requires guessing what claims your mercurial stance is going to have you calling for me to take down next without you actually going through the effort of arguing them in the first place—and thus pinning them down into a form that can actually be squared. Are you able to commit to laying out what you actually believe here and your rationale for why it's valid line of thought? In other words, if you want to hear a counter argument, you're going to first need to articulate the initial argument that you expect to be countered—preferably in the form of complete sentences that can be read as a deductive play-by-play, each point following from the last, rather than non-sequiturs appealing to incompatible values and adhering to no common goal besides opposition to OSI.

by cxr 7y ago

kemitchell 7y ago

"Open" was a high-froth marketing term in computing long before OSI came around. "Open source" itself was and is commonly used in intelligence. Christine Patterson, who proposed "open source" at the freeware summit, has written that she mentioned it to a friend in marketing at the time, and the friend advised against. "Open" was too played out, meant everything and nothing.

cxr 7y ago
This sounds like a retort to OSI's "open source", but it isn't. It contradicts nothing and does much less to support the "other" side than it seems to. How many times are the goalposts going to move in this conversation? > Christine Patterson Peterson.
- kemitchell 7y ago
  Thanks for the typo correction. On "open", see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Software_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Software_Foundation https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p... "Open" wasn't greenfield. "Open" was a marketing buzzword in computing all through the eighties.
  - cxr 7y ago
    > This sounds like a retort to OSI's "open source", but it isn't.
    - kemitchell 7y ago
      That's not an argument, it's a naked conclusion about an argument. If you'd like to send a counter-argument, I'd be happy to read it. If you'd prefer to play referee, I've no interest.
      - cxr 7y ago
        Here's a breakdown of this particular bait-and-switch: The first, strong-but-indefensible claim is made—the one that argues "open source" was in play and that there was some "original" meaning that predates OSI and their attempt to co-opt the term. This is disputed. We then see a retreat from out of the bailey into the motte, where we appeal to the "intuitive" understanding (presumably first mover now doesn't matter). Later we're back somewhere in between, except this time musing that perhaps "open" didn't mean anything at the time the Foresight group decided to embroider "open source" on their crest. In summary, the only thing we've seen is a bad argument that was subsequently vacated, leaving a void in its place plus nothing more substantial than vague suggestions that some other arguments exist that can quash OSI's stake in the term "open source". So you'll have to forgive me if I haven't yet responded with a counter-argument that requires guessing what claims your mercurial stance is going to have you calling for me to take down next without you actually going through the effort of arguing them in the first place—and thus pinning them down into a form that can actually be squared. Are you able to commit to laying out what you actually believe here and your rationale for why it's valid line of thought? In other words, if you want to hear a counter argument, you're going to first need to articulate the initial argument that you expect to be countered—preferably in the form of complete sentences that can be read as a deductive play-by-play, each point following from the last, rather than non-sequiturs appealing to incompatible values and adhering to no common goal besides opposition to OSI.