4 ms·

> 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 t

by 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...
      - eitland 6y ago
        Unfortunately most of these seems to be unrelated to software licensing, but I learned a new hack (before:) and also I got another confirmation that Google search results are finally starting to improve after 10 years...!
    - cxr 6y ago
      You know, it might really help your team if your evidence weren't always the same press release where you managed to find the words "open" and "source" incidentally appearing adjacent to one another, but is otherwise a semantic failure on the "open source" hit test. (open (source code model)) ≠ (open source) This isn't even that nuanced of an issue, let alone so nuanced that it should fail to register with compiler hackers and other programmers. > Another fact is that the USPTO rejected the OSI's attempt to trademark Insanely dishonest way to characterize this.
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        > (open (source code model)) ≠ (open source) But that's my point. It already had a different meaning. And I don't think your parsing stands up to what the record says. People who were in the community at the time will tell you for example: > I joined Caldera in November of 1995, and we certainly used "open source" broadly at that time. So why didn't they pick something that nobody was using at all? Something they could trademark? > Insanely dishonest way to characterize this. Can you explain why you think that? My understanding, from their own documents, is that 'there is virtually no chance that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office would register the mark "open source"; the mark is too descriptive.' 'Open source' is a simple descriptive phrase - it's not something the OSI own, or coined, or have any right to lecture people on.
- cxr 6y ago
  Okay, in that case... > They should have used a new term, not taken an existing one. False premise. They didn't take "an existing generic industry term" and "give it a new definition". They took an existing definition[1] and tried coming up with a catchy new turn of phrase that they hoped would be adopted in lieu of "free software", and they were wildly successful. So successful that people convince themselves that "open source" must have already been a thing when Christine Peterson suggested it at the meeting where they settled on using it. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guideline...
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > So successful that people convince themselves that "open source" must have already been a thing when Christine Peterson suggested it at the meeting where they settled on using it. No it was already a thing! She claimed to have coined it in 1998. It was already in use at least as early as 1996. http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html
    - zenhack 6y ago
      I don't have any great insight that's not in the public record, but from reading that announcement and the other article you linked, observations: - There are a bunch of references to other folks using the term, all of which are big names I recognize as being pioneers in open source consistent with the OSI's notion of it. - The mailing list posts enumerate a bunch of advantages that would not follow from mere availability of source code without additional rights consistent with the OSI's general notion. The sense I get from this is that the term probably was in use already, but it pretty much meant what the OSI says it does, not just "the source is out there."
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]

by cxr 6y ago

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...
    - eitland 6y ago
      Unfortunately most of these seems to be unrelated to software licensing, but I learned a new hack (before:) and also I got another confirmation that Google search results are finally starting to improve after 10 years...!
  - cxr 6y ago
    You know, it might really help your team if your evidence weren't always the same press release where you managed to find the words "open" and "source" incidentally appearing adjacent to one another, but is otherwise a semantic failure on the "open source" hit test. (open (source code model)) ≠ (open source) This isn't even that nuanced of an issue, let alone so nuanced that it should fail to register with compiler hackers and other programmers. > Another fact is that the USPTO rejected the OSI's attempt to trademark Insanely dishonest way to characterize this.
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      > (open (source code model)) ≠ (open source) But that's my point. It already had a different meaning. And I don't think your parsing stands up to what the record says. People who were in the community at the time will tell you for example: > I joined Caldera in November of 1995, and we certainly used "open source" broadly at that time. So why didn't they pick something that nobody was using at all? Something they could trademark? > Insanely dishonest way to characterize this. Can you explain why you think that? My understanding, from their own documents, is that 'there is virtually no chance that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office would register the mark "open source"; the mark is too descriptive.' 'Open source' is a simple descriptive phrase - it's not something the OSI own, or coined, or have any right to lecture people on.
cxr 6y ago
Okay, in that case... > They should have used a new term, not taken an existing one. False premise. They didn't take "an existing generic industry term" and "give it a new definition". They took an existing definition[1] and tried coming up with a catchy new turn of phrase that they hoped would be adopted in lieu of "free software", and they were wildly successful. So successful that people convince themselves that "open source" must have already been a thing when Christine Peterson suggested it at the meeting where they settled on using it. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guideline...
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > So successful that people convince themselves that "open source" must have already been a thing when Christine Peterson suggested it at the meeting where they settled on using it. No it was already a thing! She claimed to have coined it in 1998. It was already in use at least as early as 1996. http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html
  - zenhack 6y ago
    I don't have any great insight that's not in the public record, but from reading that announcement and the other article you linked, observations: - There are a bunch of references to other folks using the term, all of which are big names I recognize as being pioneers in open source consistent with the OSI's notion of it. - The mailing list posts enumerate a bunch of advantages that would not follow from mere availability of source code without additional rights consistent with the OSI's general notion. The sense I get from this is that the term probably was in use already, but it pretty much meant what the OSI says it does, not just "the source is out there."
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]