4 ms·

“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

“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
      > 'Open source' is a simple descriptive phrase - it's not something the OSI own, or coined, or have any right to lecture people on. You're sort of pulling back here—defending it in a different context than the way it was used in the place you first wrote it. Do you want to take this private? I'll email you. I've been in enough HN flamewars over the last 24 hours, and these types of threads where a few people dominate aren't good and might as well be private, anyway.
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        I don't believe I am pulling back. My claims are: * 'open source' was an existing industry term before 1998, with a broadly similar meaning - not exactly the same and that's kind of the point - why pick an existing term and try to give it a new meaning and then claim you invented it? * 'open source' is a plainly descriptive term, so much so that the even the USPTO told them this and that them trying to trademark it was a nonsense - it's like they tried to claim they invented 'sliced bread' and then wanted to trademark it - it's just an adjective and a noun With both of these things, I think it's really silly of them to try to tell people that things aren't open source because they don't meet their own pet definition (and they do that - they have come into HN threads and told people off). You can email me if you want! All my details are in my profile. But it's not my job to convince anyone of anything. I just know why I wouldn't let the OSI lecture me, and I'd recommend other people check the history as well.
- mgerdts 6y ago
  In 1985 "Computer Chronicles" on PBS said "open source code" while talking about Bill Joy and his new startup. https://twitter.com/OMGerdts/status/1245905516913623040?s=20 https://twitter.com/OMGerdts/status/1245905516913623040?s=20

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
    > 'Open source' is a simple descriptive phrase - it's not something the OSI own, or coined, or have any right to lecture people on. You're sort of pulling back here—defending it in a different context than the way it was used in the place you first wrote it. Do you want to take this private? I'll email you. I've been in enough HN flamewars over the last 24 hours, and these types of threads where a few people dominate aren't good and might as well be private, anyway.
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      I don't believe I am pulling back. My claims are: * 'open source' was an existing industry term before 1998, with a broadly similar meaning - not exactly the same and that's kind of the point - why pick an existing term and try to give it a new meaning and then claim you invented it? * 'open source' is a plainly descriptive term, so much so that the even the USPTO told them this and that them trying to trademark it was a nonsense - it's like they tried to claim they invented 'sliced bread' and then wanted to trademark it - it's just an adjective and a noun With both of these things, I think it's really silly of them to try to tell people that things aren't open source because they don't meet their own pet definition (and they do that - they have come into HN threads and told people off). You can email me if you want! All my details are in my profile. But it's not my job to convince anyone of anything. I just know why I wouldn't let the OSI lecture me, and I'd recommend other people check the history as well.
mgerdts 6y ago
In 1985 "Computer Chronicles" on PBS said "open source code" while talking about Bill Joy and his new startup. https://twitter.com/OMGerdts/status/1245905516913623040?s=20 https://twitter.com/OMGerdts/status/1245905516913623040?s=20