5 ms·

I know that there's a formal definition of capitalized "Open Source" by the OSI, but I'm also not enchanted by that being the only definition for lower-case "op

by qchris 6y ago

I know that there's a formal definition of capitalized "Open Source" by the OSI, but I'm also not enchanted by that being the only definition for lower-case "open source". I think that the lower case open source is really more about a general approach to software (or intellectual property in general, really). Some people want to use terms like "libre" to refer to projects that have most of the practical characteristics of open source projects, but not an OSI-approved license, but I kind of think that the lower-case version of the term is important because it's reached a point of basically a colloquialism. There's room for a grey area, but I think that the parent's comment about how Mongo's license relates to the overwhelming majority of it's community to use it (in that, functionally, it doesn't) still pushes farther towards open source than it does proprietary with source-available.

chrisseaton 6y ago
People forget that the OSI and the people behind it neither own, nor invented, the term 'open source.' They want to give you the impression that they do and they did, but they don't and they didn't.
- lowdose 6y ago
  Who did?
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    I don't know - not sure anyone does. Christine Peterson claims to have invented the term in 1998. https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source-software https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source... But at least this much is not true - we can see it being used, in context, at least as far back as 1996. I think people involved in this project at the time say it was a common term back then as well, but I can't find a reference for that now. http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html And they certainly don't own it - they wrote a whole article on their own website still available about how they don't own it! https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...
    - andrewshadura 6y ago
      The Caldera announcement you’re referring to does not use "open source" as a term. They write "open (source code) model", not "(open source) (code model)". It’s an important distinction. And yes, Christine indeed invented the term, and folks from OSI gave it the current meaning by clearly defining it.
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        I'm afraid this just isn't true. Ask other people around at the time: > I joined Caldera in November of 1995, and we certainly used "open source" broadly at that time. We were building software. I can't imagine a world where we did not use the specific phrase "open source software". And we were not alone. The term "Open Source" was used broadly by Linus Torvalds (who at the time was a student...I had dinner with Linus and his then-girlfriend Ute in Germany while he was still a student), John "Mad Dog" Hall who was a major voice in the community (he worked at COMPAQ at the time), and many, many others. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-i7au3S45C4J:https://hyperlogos.org/blog/drink/term-Open-Source+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-i7au3...
        phaemon 6y ago
        So where are all the examples on public mailing lists and Usenet of them using this? I'm afraid I simply don't trust people's hazy memories of conversations from years ago.
        chrisseaton 6y ago
        > So where are all the examples on public mailing lists and Usenet of them using this? Here's one http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html Also - even the USPTO rejected their claim as a trademark.
        phaemon 6y ago
- t0astbread 6y ago
  On the other hand, standards and consensus are important to know what's going on. See the endless meaningless "organic produce" label landscape.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  False. In the application to software, Bruce Perrens most definitely did define ther term, based on the Debian Free Software Guidelines, and the Free Software Foundation's Three Freedoms definition of Free Software, in June 1997: https://opensource.org/docs/osd https://opensource.org/docs/osd https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines https://perens.com/2017/09/26/on-usage-of-the-phrase-open-source/ https://perens.com/2017/09/26/on-usage-of-the-phrase-open-so... The term was not previously used with regard to software, though the intelligence community have used the phrase "open sources" to refer to unclassified information.b
  - andrewshadura 6y ago
    Indeed. But to be more precise: Christine invented the term and Bruce precisely defined it based on the DFSG.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > The term was not previously used with regard to software This is just not a true thing to say. See my other replies for examples from before 1997.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  I don't see a good reason to view it as akin to a power-grab. It's profoundly unhelpful when terms are diluted and muddied. We should use the OSI's definition not because they say so, and not for legalistic reasons like trademarks, but because it's important to have meaningfully precise language. It's right that when a thread is submitted of a project falsely claiming to be open source, the HN community unfailingly tears it to shreds. We don't want the term to be cheapened into becoming meaningless. I don't see that the origins of the term are relevant. Personally I tend to capitalise, I typically use Free and Open Source software to be more clear that I'm referring to free software as defined by the FSF, and open source as defined by the OSI. It's unfortunate that I've found this to be necessary, to close the door on obtuse misuse of these terms.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    Ideally they would have picked a term that they could prove to have invented and could have trademarked, then there wouldn't be an issue.
    - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
      I suppose so, but the term is typically understood in the software community as a pretty precise term of art, and people shouldn't try to muddy it. It's still better than free software, which invariably makes the uninitiated think of freeware.

by qchris 6y ago

chrisseaton 6y ago

People forget that the OSI and the people behind it neither own, nor invented, the term 'open source.' They want to give you the impression that they do and they did, but they don't and they didn't.

lowdose 6y ago
Who did?
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  I don't know - not sure anyone does. Christine Peterson claims to have invented the term in 1998. https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source-software https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source... But at least this much is not true - we can see it being used, in context, at least as far back as 1996. I think people involved in this project at the time say it was a common term back then as well, but I can't find a reference for that now. http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html And they certainly don't own it - they wrote a whole article on their own website still available about how they don't own it! https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...
  - andrewshadura 6y ago
    The Caldera announcement you’re referring to does not use "open source" as a term. They write "open (source code) model", not "(open source) (code model)". It’s an important distinction. And yes, Christine indeed invented the term, and folks from OSI gave it the current meaning by clearly defining it.
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      I'm afraid this just isn't true. Ask other people around at the time: > I joined Caldera in November of 1995, and we certainly used "open source" broadly at that time. We were building software. I can't imagine a world where we did not use the specific phrase "open source software". And we were not alone. The term "Open Source" was used broadly by Linus Torvalds (who at the time was a student...I had dinner with Linus and his then-girlfriend Ute in Germany while he was still a student), John "Mad Dog" Hall who was a major voice in the community (he worked at COMPAQ at the time), and many, many others. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-i7au3S45C4J:https://hyperlogos.org/blog/drink/term-Open-Source+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-i7au3...
      - phaemon 6y ago
        So where are all the examples on public mailing lists and Usenet of them using this? I'm afraid I simply don't trust people's hazy memories of conversations from years ago.
        chrisseaton 6y ago
        > So where are all the examples on public mailing lists and Usenet of them using this? Here's one http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html Also - even the USPTO rejected their claim as a trademark.
        phaemon 6y ago
t0astbread 6y ago
On the other hand, standards and consensus are important to know what's going on. See the endless meaningless "organic produce" label landscape.
dredmorbius 6y ago
False. In the application to software, Bruce Perrens most definitely did define ther term, based on the Debian Free Software Guidelines, and the Free Software Foundation's Three Freedoms definition of Free Software, in June 1997: https://opensource.org/docs/osd https://opensource.org/docs/osd https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines https://perens.com/2017/09/26/on-usage-of-the-phrase-open-source/ https://perens.com/2017/09/26/on-usage-of-the-phrase-open-so... The term was not previously used with regard to software, though the intelligence community have used the phrase "open sources" to refer to unclassified information.b
- andrewshadura 6y ago
  Indeed. But to be more precise: Christine invented the term and Bruce precisely defined it based on the DFSG.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > The term was not previously used with regard to software This is just not a true thing to say. See my other replies for examples from before 1997.
MaxBarraclough 6y ago
I don't see a good reason to view it as akin to a power-grab. It's profoundly unhelpful when terms are diluted and muddied. We should use the OSI's definition not because they say so, and not for legalistic reasons like trademarks, but because it's important to have meaningfully precise language. It's right that when a thread is submitted of a project falsely claiming to be open source, the HN community unfailingly tears it to shreds. We don't want the term to be cheapened into becoming meaningless. I don't see that the origins of the term are relevant. Personally I tend to capitalise, I typically use Free and Open Source software to be more clear that I'm referring to free software as defined by the FSF, and open source as defined by the OSI. It's unfortunate that I've found this to be necessary, to close the door on obtuse misuse of these terms.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  Ideally they would have picked a term that they could prove to have invented and could have trademarked, then there wouldn't be an issue.
  - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
    I suppose so, but the term is typically understood in the software community as a pretty precise term of art, and people shouldn't try to muddy it. It's still better than free software, which invariably makes the uninitiated think of freeware.