5 ms·

There are several definitions for Open Source that come from foundations and other groups, which push their own beliefs and standards. Opensource.org, for exam

by IncRnd 6y ago

There are several definitions for Open Source that come from foundations and other groups, which push their own beliefs and standards. Opensource.org, for example, pushes their own definition that excludes all those who do not use the perferred license! However, dictionaries that mirror collective understandings, as used by millions of people, tell a different story. According to OxfordLanguages, Open Source denotes, "software for which the original source code is made freely available and may be redistributed and modified." If you look at Dictionary.com. you will see that Open-Source is defined as "pertaining to or denoting a product or system whose origins, formula, design, etc., are freely accessible to the public." So, no, open source doesn't have a single definition, except to groups who are pushing their own definitions.

temac 6y ago
For software the overwhelming consensus is the OSI definition (extremely close to the FSF def, extremely close to what is applied as criteria by various distro, etc.) You may want to write "Open Source" to be sure it is not confused with something else, but even "open source" should be parsed as that definition by default. This is not even pushing a political agenda or a judgment of value. Just "everybody" calls that like that, so there is no point in overloading the term for other approaches. Using another term for other things is perfectly fine and there are plenty of them possible with a positive tone, in case they bring positive things to the table.
yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
> There are several definitions for Open Source that come from foundations and other groups ...and all of them do so because they really want to pretend that their software is "open source" without actually putting it under an open source license. Like, in the abstract I agree that it's weird having the OSI (or any one group) define "open source", but in this case I'm okay with it because every single "alternative definition" turns out to be someone just trying to pretend that their source-available software is "open source" for marketing reasons when it isn't.

by IncRnd 6y ago

temac 6y ago

For software the overwhelming consensus is the OSI definition (extremely close to the FSF def, extremely close to what is applied as criteria by various distro, etc.) You may want to write "Open Source" to be sure it is not confused with something else, but even "open source" should be parsed as that definition by default. This is not even pushing a political agenda or a judgment of value. Just "everybody" calls that like that, so there is no point in overloading the term for other approaches. Using another term for other things is perfectly fine and there are plenty of them possible with a positive tone, in case they bring positive things to the table.

yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago

> There are several definitions for Open Source that come from foundations and other groups ...and all of them do so because they really want to pretend that their software is "open source" without actually putting it under an open source license. Like, in the abstract I agree that it's weird having the OSI (or any one group) define "open source", but in this case I'm okay with it because every single "alternative definition" turns out to be someone just trying to pretend that their source-available software is "open source" for marketing reasons when it isn't.