5 ms·

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. > Ope

by 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
      “open source” was not a term, much less an industry term, before the OSI founders came up with it. Source: I was in the industry and Free Software movement at the time. More background: https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source-software https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source...
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        > “open source” was not a term, much less an industry term, before the OSI founders came up with it I'm afraid this is not true. The article you've linked to claims to have coined 'open source' in reference to software in 1998. But for example here's one earlier written reference from 1996 http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html. Here's a more general discussion about the false claim of the OSI to have coined it http://hyperlogos.org/blog/drink/term-Open-Source http://hyperlogos.org/blog/drink/term-Open-Source. Another fact is that the USPTO rejected the OSI's attempt to trademark, because even they realised it was a simple descriptive term.
        eitland 6y ago
        Wow! At first I thought you had found a place where these two words occurred after each other but it seems to have been used a few times I must admit I have been wrong. It is so nice when someone takes the care to actually provide evidence for their claims. That said, today I would still say OSIs definition has won and if anyone presented me with code and claimed it was open source and it didn't match OSIs standard then I personally would be disappointed. But I probably won't claim anymore that they are stealing our term.
        zeckalpha 6y ago
        Examples from even earlier: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=open+source+before%3A1996 https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=open+source+before%3...
        6y ago

by cxr 6y ago

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
    “open source” was not a term, much less an industry term, before the OSI founders came up with it. Source: I was in the industry and Free Software movement at the time. More background: https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source-software https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source...
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      > “open source” was not a term, much less an industry term, before the OSI founders came up with it I'm afraid this is not true. The article you've linked to claims to have coined 'open source' in reference to software in 1998. But for example here's one earlier written reference from 1996 http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html. Here's a more general discussion about the false claim of the OSI to have coined it http://hyperlogos.org/blog/drink/term-Open-Source http://hyperlogos.org/blog/drink/term-Open-Source. Another fact is that the USPTO rejected the OSI's attempt to trademark, because even they realised it was a simple descriptive term.
      - eitland 6y ago
        Wow! At first I thought you had found a place where these two words occurred after each other but it seems to have been used a few times I must admit I have been wrong. It is so nice when someone takes the care to actually provide evidence for their claims. That said, today I would still say OSIs definition has won and if anyone presented me with code and claimed it was open source and it didn't match OSIs standard then I personally would be disappointed. But I probably won't claim anymore that they are stealing our term.
      - zeckalpha 6y ago
        Examples from even earlier: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=open+source+before%3A1996 https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=open+source+before%3...
        6y ago