4 ms·

The "Open Source Definition"[0] published by the Open Source Initiative[1] on the opensource.org website, written by the people who pretty much coined the term

The "Open Source Definition"[0] published by the Open Source Initiative[1] on the opensource.org website, written by the people who pretty much coined the term in the late '90s, isn't definitive or specific enough for you? [0] https://opensource.org/docs/osd https://opensource.org/docs/osd [1] https://opensource.org/ https://opensource.org/

kube-system 6y ago
My comment wasn't about me or my understanding. I am saying that people do not universally agree with, recognize, or are even aware of OSI's definition.
- type0 6y ago
  > I am saying that people do not universally agree with, recognize, or are even aware of OSI's definition. I also noticed it among non technical people. That's too bad and actually doesn't matter because OSI is the one who has the trademark on it: https://opensource.org/trademark-guidelines https://opensource.org/trademark-guidelines edit: changed "copyright" to "trademark"
  - kube-system 6y ago
    Common words or phrases like "open source" are not copyrightable on their own. Copyrights protect "original works of authorship" -- i.e. creative works. Words or phrases that are identifiers used in commerce are protected by an entirely different type of IP law: trademarks. You are linking to OSI's trademark guidelines, of which "Open Source" is not one, per the page you linked.
    - type0 6y ago
      My bad, meant to write trademark off course
    - type0 6y ago
      > the use of the term "Open Source" is used solely in reference to software distributed under OSI Approved Licenses. so isn't the "open source" a trademark?
      - kube-system 6y ago
        No. As per the first sentence: > OSI, Open Source Initiative, and OSI logo ("OSI Logo"), either separately or in combination, are hereinafter referred to as "OSI Trademarks" and are trademarks of the Open Source Initiative. They are saying they won't permit you to refer to "OSI", "Open Source Initiative", or use their logo unless you also follow their definition of "open source". You can call anything "open source". You can't call anything "OSI open source".
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        ece 6y ago
        In their trademark guidelines they say: "Never use or register any trademarks that are confusingly similar to, or a play on, the OSI or OSI Logo." As a listed example it's unacceptable to say: "Open Source Project." It's fair for the OSI to try and protect branding of FOSS as increasing user freedoms. I think ethical source licenses are doing the same within a broader human rights framework (others may disagree). SSPL on the other hand is decreasing freedoms without question, you can't start a competing service without onerous disclosures that have little do with the software in question. Other licenses in the same vein are even more explicit in their discontent of any contributions, but development is done in the open. It's fair to call the later "source available" which is an accurate representation of what they are doing or make up another name like the ethical source people did.

kube-system 6y ago

My comment wasn't about me or my understanding. I am saying that people do not universally agree with, recognize, or are even aware of OSI's definition.

type0 6y ago
> I am saying that people do not universally agree with, recognize, or are even aware of OSI's definition. I also noticed it among non technical people. That's too bad and actually doesn't matter because OSI is the one who has the trademark on it: https://opensource.org/trademark-guidelines https://opensource.org/trademark-guidelines edit: changed "copyright" to "trademark"
- kube-system 6y ago
  Common words or phrases like "open source" are not copyrightable on their own. Copyrights protect "original works of authorship" -- i.e. creative works. Words or phrases that are identifiers used in commerce are protected by an entirely different type of IP law: trademarks. You are linking to OSI's trademark guidelines, of which "Open Source" is not one, per the page you linked.
  - type0 6y ago
    My bad, meant to write trademark off course
  - type0 6y ago
    > the use of the term "Open Source" is used solely in reference to software distributed under OSI Approved Licenses. so isn't the "open source" a trademark?
    - kube-system 6y ago
      No. As per the first sentence: > OSI, Open Source Initiative, and OSI logo ("OSI Logo"), either separately or in combination, are hereinafter referred to as "OSI Trademarks" and are trademarks of the Open Source Initiative. They are saying they won't permit you to refer to "OSI", "Open Source Initiative", or use their logo unless you also follow their definition of "open source". You can call anything "open source". You can't call anything "OSI open source".
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - ece 6y ago
        In their trademark guidelines they say: "Never use or register any trademarks that are confusingly similar to, or a play on, the OSI or OSI Logo." As a listed example it's unacceptable to say: "Open Source Project." It's fair for the OSI to try and protect branding of FOSS as increasing user freedoms. I think ethical source licenses are doing the same within a broader human rights framework (others may disagree). SSPL on the other hand is decreasing freedoms without question, you can't start a competing service without onerous disclosures that have little do with the software in question. Other licenses in the same vein are even more explicit in their discontent of any contributions, but development is done in the open. It's fair to call the later "source available" which is an accurate representation of what they are doing or make up another name like the ethical source people did.