5 ms·

> Open source is defined by the OSD, which this license doesn't qualify for The OSD isn't an arbiter of what is and isn't. Open-source is a flexible term, and

> Open source is defined by the OSD, which this license doesn't qualify for The OSD isn't an arbiter of what is and isn't. Open-source is a flexible term, and insisting that projects must meet definitions A, B, and C is just going to fragment the community and exclude people.

jordigh 7y ago
The point of insisting what "open source" means is that we want to ensure the freedoms that open source guarantees. If we don't insist on this definition people will start pushing licenses that forbid commercial use and other things, as this license forbids, and we'll embrace it because we think "ah, open source!" And yes, when you coin a term, you also get to say what that term means. That's the whole point of coining it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22012429 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22012429
- SquareWheel 7y ago
  The freedoms are guaranteed by the language of the license itself. That's what licenses are for.
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  You're arguing about linguistic prescriptivism vs. descriptivism. Is the definition of the term what the coiner says, or is it how it is commonly understood? A lot of people are going to disagree with you if you claim that prescriptivism is somehow more correct.
  - jordigh 7y ago
    It is different for technical terms. It's perfectly fine if I told a novice mathematician, "no, wait, that's wrong, a Riemannian manifold is..." We have a precise, technical definition of open source precisely so we can judge when a license satisfies the legal freedoms that open source demands.
    - joshuamorton 7y ago
      Perhaps, but "open source" isn't a technical term, and anyway there are lots of vaguely technical terms that have a subtly different layman's definition anyway. Categorizing certain phrases as "technical terms" to which different rules apply is just another form of linguistic prescriptivism, after all.
      - the_af 7y ago
        "Open source" is very much a technical term with a very precise definition. Microsoft knew this when they wanted to jump on the bandwagon and named their own license "Shared Source Initiative" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Source_Initiative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Source_Initiative). It wasn't open source, it was "Shared Source", because it didn't comply with the definition of open source.
      - xorcist 7y ago
        "Open Source" specifically was coined precisely because there was little or no documented previous use of the term. They wanted something that would mean roughly the same as "Free Software" but possible to protect with a trademark and owned by an industry association. (Not the FSF.)
  - SquareWheel 7y ago
    I'm very curious how many of those insisting on the strict definition also pronounce .gif as GIFF, despite the creator clearly insisting it's JIFF. Words change. The coiner has no more real authority over them than anyone else.
    - alvarosevilla95 7y ago
      To be fair I see a fundamental difference between changing a words pronunciation and meaning.
      - SquareWheel 7y ago
        That's true enough. Related, the definition of gif has actually changed for some. Instead of a specific file format they use the term to mean "soundless looping video". Admittedly even I have a hard time swallowing that definition.
    - djur 7y ago
      Seems more like calling a JPEG a GIF.

jordigh 7y ago

The point of insisting what "open source" means is that we want to ensure the freedoms that open source guarantees. If we don't insist on this definition people will start pushing licenses that forbid commercial use and other things, as this license forbids, and we'll embrace it because we think "ah, open source!" And yes, when you coin a term, you also get to say what that term means. That's the whole point of coining it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22012429 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22012429

SquareWheel 7y ago
The freedoms are guaranteed by the language of the license itself. That's what licenses are for.
joshuamorton 7y ago
You're arguing about linguistic prescriptivism vs. descriptivism. Is the definition of the term what the coiner says, or is it how it is commonly understood? A lot of people are going to disagree with you if you claim that prescriptivism is somehow more correct.
- jordigh 7y ago
  It is different for technical terms. It's perfectly fine if I told a novice mathematician, "no, wait, that's wrong, a Riemannian manifold is..." We have a precise, technical definition of open source precisely so we can judge when a license satisfies the legal freedoms that open source demands.
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    Perhaps, but "open source" isn't a technical term, and anyway there are lots of vaguely technical terms that have a subtly different layman's definition anyway. Categorizing certain phrases as "technical terms" to which different rules apply is just another form of linguistic prescriptivism, after all.
    - the_af 7y ago
      "Open source" is very much a technical term with a very precise definition. Microsoft knew this when they wanted to jump on the bandwagon and named their own license "Shared Source Initiative" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Source_Initiative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Source_Initiative). It wasn't open source, it was "Shared Source", because it didn't comply with the definition of open source.
    - xorcist 7y ago
      "Open Source" specifically was coined precisely because there was little or no documented previous use of the term. They wanted something that would mean roughly the same as "Free Software" but possible to protect with a trademark and owned by an industry association. (Not the FSF.)
- SquareWheel 7y ago
  I'm very curious how many of those insisting on the strict definition also pronounce .gif as GIFF, despite the creator clearly insisting it's JIFF. Words change. The coiner has no more real authority over them than anyone else.
  - alvarosevilla95 7y ago
    To be fair I see a fundamental difference between changing a words pronunciation and meaning.
    - SquareWheel 7y ago
      That's true enough. Related, the definition of gif has actually changed for some. Instead of a specific file format they use the term to mean "soundless looping video". Admittedly even I have a hard time swallowing that definition.
  - djur 7y ago
    Seems more like calling a JPEG a GIF.