9 ms·

Nonsense. It's utter pedantry to pretend that a couple of isolated posts where they happen to use the words "open" and "source" together proved anything. In you

Nonsense. It's utter pedantry to pretend that a couple of isolated posts where they happen to use the words "open" and "source" together proved anything. In your first example, they're clearly using it as "open source-code", not "open-source code". Your second link doesn't work. But the fact is, if it was a phrase in current use, you wouldn't just have one or two examples. There would be thousands. Where are all the other mentions of Caldera's "Open Source" software? The reality is this: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22+open+source+software+%22&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22+open+sourc... Can you spot where the OSI appeared? The reason they couldn't get their trademark is because they had been so successful in promoting the term. Though, I am curious now who came out with something around 1980. Might have to dig into that one.

gpm 6y ago
> It's utter pedantry to pretend that a couple of isolated posts where they happen to use the words "open" and "source" together proved anything. In your first example, they're clearly using it as "open source-code", not "open-source code". Your second link doesn't work. In the body it is used (hyphens not added) 2x: “open-source” not followed by the word code. 3x: “open-source code”. 1x: “open source code”. Plus in the 6 word tile as “open source” not followed by the word code. And open source is the main object. Moreover it’s not just a throwaway phrase but a label they are using for their model Caldera believes an open source code model benefits the industry in many ways. They continue to be extremely interested in DOS and support our open-source technology direction Caldera’s OEM and Channel Partners can utilize the open-source code models for DOS and Linux to create I’m honestly not sure how it could be any clearer... (I love it when I can copy and paste old arguments ;)) > But the fact is, if it was a phrase in current use, you wouldn't just have one or two examples. There would be thousands. Where are all the other mentions of Caldera's "Open Source" software? It doesn't have to be extremely popular to be in use. The truth of the matter is that there wasn't much "open source" or "source available" software. The other truth of the matter is I have finite patience for trawling through old mailing lists looking for the term open source. > The reality is this: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22+open+sourc.. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22+open+sourc.... As you yourself note there is a bump dating to... 1975... the truth of this is the OSI used a term already in use and made it more popular, not that they invented it. > Can you spot where the OSI appeared? The reason they couldn't get their trademark is because they had been so successful in promoting the term. No, it was because the term is merely descriptive. It would also be because the term was already in use if the PTO noticed that (but they often don't - and I haven't tracked down the documents to check if they did).
- cxr 6y ago
  > It doesn't have to be extremely popular to be in use. The truth of the matter is that there wasn't much "open source" or "source available" software. That's outright nonsense. Just for comparison, Linux had already been around for the better part of a decade by that point, Red Hat had incorporated in 1993, and GNU/FSF might as well have been wrapping up the tour for their fifth album. To say that there wasn't much of the stuff in 1998 is either either ignorance, delusion, or both. Open source software projects were a bajillion years old by that point, but nobody was calling them that, what with the term not yet having been invented and all. They were (begrudgingly!) "free software" until it was decided that mozilla.org would be a thing.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

gpm 6y ago

> It's utter pedantry to pretend that a couple of isolated posts where they happen to use the words "open" and "source" together proved anything. In your first example, they're clearly using it as "open source-code", not "open-source code". Your second link doesn't work. In the body it is used (hyphens not added) 2x: “open-source” not followed by the word code. 3x: “open-source code”. 1x: “open source code”. Plus in the 6 word tile as “open source” not followed by the word code. And open source is the main object. Moreover it’s not just a throwaway phrase but a label they are using for their model Caldera believes an open source code model benefits the industry in many ways. They continue to be extremely interested in DOS and support our open-source technology direction Caldera’s OEM and Channel Partners can utilize the open-source code models for DOS and Linux to create I’m honestly not sure how it could be any clearer... (I love it when I can copy and paste old arguments ;)) > But the fact is, if it was a phrase in current use, you wouldn't just have one or two examples. There would be thousands. Where are all the other mentions of Caldera's "Open Source" software? It doesn't have to be extremely popular to be in use. The truth of the matter is that there wasn't much "open source" or "source available" software. The other truth of the matter is I have finite patience for trawling through old mailing lists looking for the term open source. > The reality is this: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22+open+sourc.. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22+open+sourc.... As you yourself note there is a bump dating to... 1975... the truth of this is the OSI used a term already in use and made it more popular, not that they invented it. > Can you spot where the OSI appeared? The reason they couldn't get their trademark is because they had been so successful in promoting the term. No, it was because the term is merely descriptive. It would also be because the term was already in use if the PTO noticed that (but they often don't - and I haven't tracked down the documents to check if they did).

cxr 6y ago
> It doesn't have to be extremely popular to be in use. The truth of the matter is that there wasn't much "open source" or "source available" software. That's outright nonsense. Just for comparison, Linux had already been around for the better part of a decade by that point, Red Hat had incorporated in 1993, and GNU/FSF might as well have been wrapping up the tour for their fifth album. To say that there wasn't much of the stuff in 1998 is either either ignorance, delusion, or both. Open source software projects were a bajillion years old by that point, but nobody was calling them that, what with the term not yet having been invented and all. They were (begrudgingly!) "free software" until it was decided that mozilla.org would be a thing.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]