7 ms·

If we're being pedantic, the Open Source Definition can't actually define what is and isn't open source, they can only say what is allowed their trademark certi

• phoe-krk 6y ago
  > open-source means literally the source code is open to anyone to view You mean the term "source available", which has been a well-defined term for years as well.
  • sjwright 6y ago
    I think the point c3534l was making is that open source should be considered a generic term and should not have its meaning conflated with Open Source™ which is just one group with one opinion. And I agree, at least in part. I think the agonising over a precise definition of open source is as futile as the attempts to distinguish "hacker" from "cracker" twenty years ago. At the same time I also agree that proprietary software that has available source but no rights to do anything with it is most definitely not open source by any rational definition. So whether or not OpenDarwin is Open Source™, it's still open source.
    • akiselev 6y ago
      > I think the point c3534l was making is that open source should be considered a generic term and should not have its meaning conflated with Open Source™ which is just one group with one opinion. They're both "just one group with one opinion." The difference is that one is definition widely accepted as a term of art in software development and the other is not.
      • cxr 6y ago
        Not to mention, the capital-O capital-S group is the one who coined the phrase and pushed for its adoption in the first place.
        • deleted 6y ago
          [deleted]
    • phoe-krk 6y ago
      I fully understood his point and at the same time disagree with it - "open source" should not be considered a generic term, and the reasons are purely practical. OSI has taken this term two decades ago and coined its widely known meaning, where "open source" means "compliant with the OSI open source definition", just as GNU did with "free" or "libre" software. The terms "open source" and "free software" have become ubiquitous in the programming world and widespread even in popular culture and redefining them brings completely no benefit - not even cultural ones, since the terms "open" or "free" or "libre" software do not have background associated with racism or sexism, unlike some of the recent nomenclature debates. And this "one group with one opinion" that you are speaking of has been one of the most powerful software groups in the world with a lot of influence on how the programming world is shaped and what software you, your family, your employers, your friends and your enemies use in your daily life, so your argument about it being "one group with one opinion" holds as much sense to me as Microsoft being "just one operating system vendor with one opinion" in a discussion about operating systems.
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      • sjwright 6y ago
        I simply disagree that the group which coins a term gets to control its usage or its colloquial definition. That's not a reflection of my preference, it's just my own observation of reality. In reality, words mean whatever the recipient thinks it means. In practice, that means the assumptions of the median person overrule any formal definition.
        • Brian_K_White 6y ago
          They didn't write a law for the purpose of oppression and human farming. They presented a suggestion for everyone's benefit and sanity, and everyone adopted it voluntarily because it was beneficial and sane. This argument is neither.
  • skissane 6y ago
    I think the term "source available" is somewhat ambiguous, in it can potentially refer to a few different arrangements: 1) The source is freely available to anyone to view, but rights to compile/modify/redistribute/etc are heavily restricted 2) Proprietary software you have to purchase, but it comes with the full source code 3) Proprietary software sold in binary form, but where the full source code can be licensed for an additional fee 4) Proprietary software sold in binary form, but where customers can acquire source code access subject to heavy restrictions As an example of option (4) – there was a period in the past when IBM used to allow customers to order the source code to some of its mainframe software products (including the MVS operating system), but it was only shipped on microfiche. As such customers could view the source code but not compile or modify it. Additionally, much of that software was written in a proprietary dialect of PL/I known as PL/S (or later versions are called PL/X), for which IBM mostly refused to release the compiler – so even if you transcribed the microfiche into machine readable format, you didn't have a compiler with. (IBM has occasionally licensed the PL/S compiler to ISVs and other partners; some clone mainframe vendors, such as Fujitsu, apparently built compilers for PL/S by extending PL/I compilers; RAND Corporation did something similar in the 1980s, and briefly distributed the result, but got in trouble with IBM's lawyers and had to stop.) XNU is closest to sense (1), but rather than being "heavily restricted", it is almost Open Source Definition compliant – there is an additional restriction which violates the Open Source Definition, but for many users that additional restriction will have no practical relevance. It is certainly a long way from a "reference license" which lets you read the source code but not compile or modify it or distribute your changes.
    • Brian_K_White 6y ago
      None of this conflicts with what the parent said. The term isn't ambiguous any more than the word "source" is ambiguous because it doesn't specify a language. It means exactly what both you and the parent said. It unambiguously defines a class rather than an instance, and disambiguates vs open source, and all these example class members you provided fall within the idea the parent expressed.
• mjg59 6y ago
  You're right that the Open Source Definition doesn't define the term "open source" - usage does. But common usage of "open source" still means "something that meets the open source definition", not "I can see the source code". There are some people who use a different definition, but it's a long way from being well accepted.
  • _frkl 6y ago
    > You're right that the Open Source Definition doesn't define the term "open source" - usage does. But common usage of "open source" still means "something that meets the open source definition", not "I can see the source code". There are some people who use a different definition, but it's a long way from being well accepted. True, it'd be interesting if someone did some sort of study on that though, and get some real numbers. I have the impression that people know less and less what the open source definition even is, so maybe this has started to shift in the last few years? I have a feeling, to younger developers, open source means often (in practice): I can see the code, and I can use it without having to pay...
    • zenhack 6y ago
      I think you're right that most folks don't have as detailed a definition in mind as the fairly verbose open source definition. But I think most folks have in mind something more permissive than just being able to /view/ the source. In particular, being able to modify, run, and redistribute are also essential (the fsf's four freedoms get closer to the heart of the matter). I think "you can't use it to do X" disqualifies the license, though in this case I'm not sure how much I care, since it's prohibiting things that are illegal where I am anyway (maybe if your country doesn't have a dmca equivalent it might matter).
    • gvjddbnvdrbv 6y ago
      The lawyers know what it means and they are the ones that matter in this context.
• chris_wot 6y ago
  It’s not open if it is read only. It’s only open if you can read and modify the source.
• cxr 6y ago
  People show up with their superficially plausible arguments like this one to try and retcon what "open source" means, but there are a few pesky problems. > Open-source is like a book that can be opened to look inside. Except every single book that has ever existed also has that property, and you're definitely not calling them "open source". If you did tell someone that a book is "open source" they'd understand you to be saying something else entirely other than that you can look at it. Sometimes prescriptivism has its merits. The case of "open source" is one of them.
  • chrisseaton 6y ago
    > People show up with their superficially plausible arguments like this one to try and retcon what "open source" means, but there are a few pesky problems. It's the OSI who are trying to retcon what open source means! Why do they think they have the right to tell anyone what 'open source' means? They should have used a new term, not taken an existing one.
    • cxr 6y ago
      > They should have used a new term, not taken an existing one. I think you're trolling, yes? First read: "what a crazy comment", second read: "hmm, might be trolling", third read: "okay, yeah, I get it now… I think". This is a dangerous game.
      • chrisseaton 6y ago
        > I think you're trolling, yes? No, I'm not trolling. I don't think the OSI should have taken an existing generic industry term and tried to trademark it and give it a new definition. I think that was a real ethical mistake and it was also a strategic mistake. I think it would have been better for everyone if they called it OpenFoo (TM) software, or something like that that they came up with themselves and they could legally protect. Now they're reduced to just trying to complain when people don't look at things their way.
        • KillerDiller 6y ago
• NineStarPoint 6y ago
  It’s not quite like natural, natural is a word that would predate any comoany trying to take it for their own ends. “Open Source” as a terminology was coined in 1998 by a group of people, and the OSI was formed by one of those people that same year to help define what the term would mean and encourage industry adoption. An entity that has existed as long as the term has and helped shape it’s perception to programmers is a bit different than an entity coopting a term that had prior use. Regardless, I’ve always understood Open Source to also mean open to use, extension, and repackaging myself. The exact definition indeed doesn’t have to be owned by the OSI, but their guideline are a pretty good approximation of what I would expect code to do to be truly open source.
• gvjddbnvdrbv 6y ago
  Open source has a common and well understood definition. Your definition and opinion won't change that. You may however cause confusion if you misuse the term.
  • pjmlp 6y ago
    Before it was repurposed, it used to mean that software packages for developers also had the library source available for debugging purposes.
    • gvjddbnvdrbv 6y ago
      Can you provide any historical primary sources that show that it was widely used like this before it gained it's current meaning over 20 years ago?
      • pjmlp 6y ago
        My brain I guess, not going to search now for whatever issues from DrDobbs, The C User's Journal, The C/C++ User's Journal, PC Techniques, Computer Shopper, Crash, Your Sinclair, Amiga Format, Input, Byte, C++ Report, MSJ Systems Journal might have been digitalized and in what page the magic words appear.
        • gvjddbnvdrbv 6y ago
          Your brain only really counts if you have some records of you using the term like this and people understanding you as such over 20 years ago. Otherwise there should be some published materials available to back up your claim. This is a list of the names of magazines and doesn't really help much. Can you provide some specific references of this usage? Either way it doesn't really matter. The only ones that really care about licenses are legal and they know what open source means.
          • pjmlp 6y ago
            Yes, advertising, code listings and developer product reviews in those magazines, but I guess now facts only count if they are pasted into some random Website. Which by the way, plenty of fellow HNers have provided in multiple answers using other sources.
• Brian_K_White 6y ago
  Why is it at all interesting that you define open as merely viewable, while other people define open as also being usable? I see no pedantic correction here, merely an opinion on what one individual personally cares about. IE, you think visibilty is the important part. OK good for you. So what? That does not define open or correct any other definition of open.
• Zarel 6y ago
  Even if you ignore the subthread of whether or not the OSI coined the term "open source" or if it was previously used, I think it's valid to standardize terms. Imagine everyone had browsers with slightly different ideas of what HTML was, and then the W3C comes along and says "we're going to standardize on HTML meaning this", and then, 20 years later, I think it's valid to say "this isn't valid HTML" to mean "this HTML doesn't conform to the W3C's standard". Or, to pick a different example, just because the word "planet" has been used for thousands of years with varying definitions doesn't mean that it's wrong for me to say "Pluto isn't a planet" rather than "Pluto isn't a planet™ as defined by the IAU". I think if a word is previously vague and unclear, and then a standards body steps in and defines the edge cases, and everyone uses their definition of the word for decades, I think that's good enough to use that definition for everyone going forward. You might have had an argument 20 years ago when the word was newly standardized, but it's too late now; just pick a new word like "source available".