12 ms·

> So open source means only licenses that are most favourable to the big tech monopolists now? No, open source means the same thing it's always meant since the

> So open source means only licenses that are most favourable to the big tech monopolists now? No, open source means the same thing it's always meant since the term was first coined. See the Open Source Initiative's Open Source Definition: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd. Now someone will respond "why does OSI get to decide the meaning of the term?" Well, they don't have any _legal_ right to do so, but if you don't accept their definition, does that mean every person gets to come up with their own definition? And if they do, what's the point of using the term? So it makes sense to take OSI's definition as canonical, the same way the Free Software Foundation's definition of Free Software is generally considered canonical (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html). Also, to forestall another common reply, I'm not defending Amazon or attacking Elastic. I'm simply trying to define a term that's at the center of this discussion. If we can't agree on the definition, then any discussion of whether a license is open source is moot. The same goes for discussing the impact and value of open source vs non-open licenses.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
kube-system 6y ago
Are you sure the FSF's definition of Free Software is a good example of your point here? That definition is almost entirely only respected by western software developers who support the FSF's cause. Just type "free software" into your favorite search engine and see how commonly that definition is followed in practice. Honestly, I think we should just say OSI-licensed if we mean OSI-licensed. Words are only as good as they can be used to communicate with others. If people misunderstand me, it's my fault.
- Symbiote 6y ago
  Many other languages have an unambiguous word for "libre", and can translate "libre software" directly.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    I think this is a good solution. English is not a prescriptive language; loanwords are perfectly valid. Of course, 'OSI-license' is more accurate still, as they don't have a monopoly on 'libre' either. Many would say the WTFPL is accurately described as libre, even if OSI doesn't.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  The OSI should have picked their own term that they could have trademarked, not an existing simply descriptive term, then we wouldn't have this problem.
  - autarch 6y ago
    As far as I know, the term "open source" was coined by the same people who were involved in founding OSI (though the OSI founders were a subset of the people who first used the term). I'd be very curious to see examples of widespread use before 1997 or so. See the Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
    - EarlKing 6y ago
      You are misinformed. The term "open source" has a history that predates the OSI by at least eight years, possibly longer (but I can only provide cites going back eight years). Please see my full reply here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26507460 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26507460
      - kube-system 6y ago
        For example, read the last line of this: http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      > As far as I know, the term "open source" was coined by the same people who were involved in founding OSI I think this has been shown to be a bit of a myth. They claim to have coined it in 1998 but there's evidence of it in use in context without even needing to explain the idea by other people as far back as 1993. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32/WoBvPB0U9Co/wXfpq5nEJTYJ https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.os.ms-windows.pro... Also, the fact is the USPTO wouldn't allow them to trademark it because it has a simple existing descriptive term.
- cmeacham98 6y ago
  Unfortunately the word "free" has a dual meaning between "with no/few limitations" and "zero cost". Sometimes, people use the latter definition - using context clues to determine which version of the word is in use is needed similar to other English words with dual meanings.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    So does "open" and "open-source" which both predate their use for software.
    - pessimizer 6y ago
      So does "Windows," "Apple" or "Facebook."
      - kube-system 6y ago
        Yes, and those are all proper nouns as far as the English language is concerned and registered trademarks as far as their use in trade is concerned.
- autarch 6y ago
  If we're talking about "free software" in the context of licensing the FSF's definition is the only one that matters. Obviously there is free (no cost) software as well, at least in English where we have one word for both meanings. This can be easily disambiguated in a discussion by the "free as in speech, not free as in beer" phrase, or if people are familiar with the term, using "libre software" to clarify.
  - sjwright 6y ago
    Actually English does have a perfectly serviceable word, but for some reason no one is interested in calling at freedom software. yes it is grammatically awkward, but that’s a less worse problem than being semantically awkward, IMHO.
    - chc 6y ago
      "Freedom software" sounds like word salad to my American ear, so I'm not sure how you see that as serviceable. If you showed me the phrase and put a gun to my head to guess what it meant, I'd probably guess it was a jokey way of talking about software written in France.
    - yesenadam 6y ago
      I like that. "Free software" will never stop causing misunderstandings. The first you come across "freedom software" you might google it, but the first time you see "free software" you will think it just means free ($0) software. Unfamiliar terms should fail fast in peoples' minds, not be silently mistaken for familiar terms.
    - _carbyau_ 6y ago
      Problem with language is interpretation and use by the masses. IE see Decimate. "Freedom" noun to me is almost interchangeable with "overtly American" noun. While not the technical definition by proper english the connotations count.
EarlKing 6y ago
> No, open source means the same thing it's always meant since the term was first coined. See the Open Source Initiative's Open Source Definition: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd. Problem: The OSI did not coin the term 'open source'. OSI partisans claim that Christine Peterson coined the term at a strategy meeting in Palo Alto on 3 February 1998. However, the term and the concept was well known prior to that. Martin Tournoij does a decent enough job of collecting prior citations [1] that go all the way back to 1990. All the OSI did was take an existing philosophy, scribble some new restrictions in crayon, and called it Open Source(tm)(c)(pat. pending). Honestly, though, I do love it when this comes up. It gives me the opportunity to irk new guys telling them that Lyle Ball, head of public relations at Caldera, has an earlier citation than the OSI in the form of a press-release announcing Caldera OpenDOS[2][3]. :D [1] https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html [2] http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html [3] http://ftp.uni-bayreuth.de/pc/caldera/OpenDOS.701/license.txt http://ftp.uni-bayreuth.de/pc/caldera/OpenDOS.701/license.tx...
- autarch 6y ago
  What do you hope to achieve with this? Ok, you win, the term "open source" predates the OSI. So what? Using the term "open source" without any definition is useless. If we can't agree on a definition, it's impossible to know if we're actually talking about the same thing. I want people to use the OSI definition in order to elevate debates. I'd prefer to skip past definitions to more substantial matters, like whether "open source" (per OSI) is useful. Is it somehow better than closed source code? Is it _ethically_ valuable? Is there some subset of the OSI definition that provides more value than the rest? These are interesting discussions worth having. Endless debating the meaning of "open source" is a huge waste of time. Given that OSI is the only body I know of with a clear definition, let's use theirs and move on to more substantial topics.
  - phd514 6y ago
    AWS, Google, and MSFT are among the top sponsors of OSI*. They are not neutral arbiters in the OSS space. [0] https://opensource.org/sponsors https://opensource.org/sponsors
amelius 6y ago
> "why does OSI get to decide the meaning of the term?" They don't. "Open source" is, foremost, a word and not a definition. Just as in any language, the people get to decide how language is used. If you want to be specific about the meaning of open source, just say "OSI open source" or something.
- anoncake 6y ago
  The people have decided that "open source" means OSI open source. Therefore that is its effective definition. Which means > If you want to be specific about the meaning of open source, just say "OSI open source" or something. is wrong. "OSI open source" and "open source" are synonyms.
  - mindcrime 6y ago
    The people have decided that "open source" means OSI open source. Therefore that is its effective definition. Which means Exactly. In common, everyday usage, when people talk about "Open Source" this is what the majority mean. It's not a "de jure" definition, but it is a "de facto" definition. Open Source means compliance with the OSD. There are terms for those other licenses - "shared source", "source available", etc. Use them if that's what you mean.
  - konjin 6y ago
    >The people have decided that "open source" means OSI open source. I am the people. I do not agree. Now what?
    - mindcrime 6y ago
      * Now what?* Worst case? You walk through use life using terms in non-standard, idiosyncratic ways, and people are constantly confused by your speech, or argue with you because you don't have a shared understanding of the world.
      - shkkmo 6y ago
        Except it isn't really idiosyncratic since there appears to be widespread confusion as to the meaning of that term. You can't just hand wave that ambiguity away and pretend that only the OSI definition is understood and used. You have to accept the "open source" is an ambiguous term and you will need to use qualifiers or additional context if you want to avoid ambiguity when using that term.
m463 6y ago
from "Words to Avoid (or Use with Care) Because They Are Loaded or Confusing" “Open” Please avoid using the term “open” or “open source” as a substitute for “free software.” Those terms refer to a different set of views[1] based on different values. The free software movement campaigns for your freedom in your computing, as a matter of justice. The open source non-movement does not campaign for anything in this way. When referring to the open source views, it's correct to use that name, but please do not use that term when talking about us, our software, or our views—that leads people to suppose our views are similar to theirs. Instead of open source, we say, free software or free (libre) software. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open [1] "Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software" https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
- wizzwizz4 6y ago
  I don't see how this is relevant.
  - _carbyau_ 6y ago
    So many comments in this thread seem to conflate Open Source definition with the original Free Software definition. The companies who have restrictions on how their Open Source software can be used can technically be Open Source (depending on your definition) while failing to be Free Software. The two links clarify that originally at least, they were not the same thing. This has been going on for a long time and hence as with many language phrases the use/connotation/definition may change over time. And so we have a HN comment fest over "What Really Is The Definition of Open Source?".
    - wizzwizz4 6y ago
      I see. I thought you were linking to them because you were also conflating the two.
      - 6y ago
ForHackernews 6y ago
The OSI was always an attempt to rebrand free software, get it away from its hippie roots, and make it palatable to big corporations. As far as I'm concerned, if they can play these language games, so can Elastic.
6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
This sounds like "if A and B can't agree on a definition, terms are meaningless, so we need to use A's definition." Why not use B's definition? The purists saying "open source is a narrow thing" only distract conversations about licensing. Word meanings drift over time. We manage. Talk about issues instead of gatekeeping terms.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

kube-system 6y ago

Are you sure the FSF's definition of Free Software is a good example of your point here? That definition is almost entirely only respected by western software developers who support the FSF's cause. Just type "free software" into your favorite search engine and see how commonly that definition is followed in practice. Honestly, I think we should just say OSI-licensed if we mean OSI-licensed. Words are only as good as they can be used to communicate with others. If people misunderstand me, it's my fault.

Symbiote 6y ago
Many other languages have an unambiguous word for "libre", and can translate "libre software" directly.
- kube-system 6y ago
  I think this is a good solution. English is not a prescriptive language; loanwords are perfectly valid. Of course, 'OSI-license' is more accurate still, as they don't have a monopoly on 'libre' either. Many would say the WTFPL is accurately described as libre, even if OSI doesn't.
chrisseaton 6y ago
The OSI should have picked their own term that they could have trademarked, not an existing simply descriptive term, then we wouldn't have this problem.
- autarch 6y ago
  As far as I know, the term "open source" was coined by the same people who were involved in founding OSI (though the OSI founders were a subset of the people who first used the term). I'd be very curious to see examples of widespread use before 1997 or so. See the Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
  - EarlKing 6y ago
    You are misinformed. The term "open source" has a history that predates the OSI by at least eight years, possibly longer (but I can only provide cites going back eight years). Please see my full reply here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26507460 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26507460
    - kube-system 6y ago
      For example, read the last line of this: http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > As far as I know, the term "open source" was coined by the same people who were involved in founding OSI I think this has been shown to be a bit of a myth. They claim to have coined it in 1998 but there's evidence of it in use in context without even needing to explain the idea by other people as far back as 1993. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32/WoBvPB0U9Co/wXfpq5nEJTYJ https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.os.ms-windows.pro... Also, the fact is the USPTO wouldn't allow them to trademark it because it has a simple existing descriptive term.
cmeacham98 6y ago
Unfortunately the word "free" has a dual meaning between "with no/few limitations" and "zero cost". Sometimes, people use the latter definition - using context clues to determine which version of the word is in use is needed similar to other English words with dual meanings.
- kube-system 6y ago
  So does "open" and "open-source" which both predate their use for software.
  - pessimizer 6y ago
    So does "Windows," "Apple" or "Facebook."
    - kube-system 6y ago
      Yes, and those are all proper nouns as far as the English language is concerned and registered trademarks as far as their use in trade is concerned.
autarch 6y ago
If we're talking about "free software" in the context of licensing the FSF's definition is the only one that matters. Obviously there is free (no cost) software as well, at least in English where we have one word for both meanings. This can be easily disambiguated in a discussion by the "free as in speech, not free as in beer" phrase, or if people are familiar with the term, using "libre software" to clarify.
- sjwright 6y ago
  Actually English does have a perfectly serviceable word, but for some reason no one is interested in calling at freedom software. yes it is grammatically awkward, but that’s a less worse problem than being semantically awkward, IMHO.
  - chc 6y ago
    "Freedom software" sounds like word salad to my American ear, so I'm not sure how you see that as serviceable. If you showed me the phrase and put a gun to my head to guess what it meant, I'd probably guess it was a jokey way of talking about software written in France.
  - yesenadam 6y ago
    I like that. "Free software" will never stop causing misunderstandings. The first you come across "freedom software" you might google it, but the first time you see "free software" you will think it just means free ($0) software. Unfamiliar terms should fail fast in peoples' minds, not be silently mistaken for familiar terms.
  - _carbyau_ 6y ago
    Problem with language is interpretation and use by the masses. IE see Decimate. "Freedom" noun to me is almost interchangeable with "overtly American" noun. While not the technical definition by proper english the connotations count.

EarlKing 6y ago

> No, open source means the same thing it's always meant since the term was first coined. See the Open Source Initiative's Open Source Definition: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd. Problem: The OSI did not coin the term 'open source'. OSI partisans claim that Christine Peterson coined the term at a strategy meeting in Palo Alto on 3 February 1998. However, the term and the concept was well known prior to that. Martin Tournoij does a decent enough job of collecting prior citations [1] that go all the way back to 1990. All the OSI did was take an existing philosophy, scribble some new restrictions in crayon, and called it Open Source(tm)(c)(pat. pending). Honestly, though, I do love it when this comes up. It gives me the opportunity to irk new guys telling them that Lyle Ball, head of public relations at Caldera, has an earlier citation than the OSI in the form of a press-release announcing Caldera OpenDOS[2][3]. :D [1] https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html [2] http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html [3] http://ftp.uni-bayreuth.de/pc/caldera/OpenDOS.701/license.txt http://ftp.uni-bayreuth.de/pc/caldera/OpenDOS.701/license.tx...

autarch 6y ago
What do you hope to achieve with this? Ok, you win, the term "open source" predates the OSI. So what? Using the term "open source" without any definition is useless. If we can't agree on a definition, it's impossible to know if we're actually talking about the same thing. I want people to use the OSI definition in order to elevate debates. I'd prefer to skip past definitions to more substantial matters, like whether "open source" (per OSI) is useful. Is it somehow better than closed source code? Is it _ethically_ valuable? Is there some subset of the OSI definition that provides more value than the rest? These are interesting discussions worth having. Endless debating the meaning of "open source" is a huge waste of time. Given that OSI is the only body I know of with a clear definition, let's use theirs and move on to more substantial topics.
- phd514 6y ago
  AWS, Google, and MSFT are among the top sponsors of OSI*. They are not neutral arbiters in the OSS space. [0] https://opensource.org/sponsors https://opensource.org/sponsors

amelius 6y ago

> "why does OSI get to decide the meaning of the term?" They don't. "Open source" is, foremost, a word and not a definition. Just as in any language, the people get to decide how language is used. If you want to be specific about the meaning of open source, just say "OSI open source" or something.

anoncake 6y ago
The people have decided that "open source" means OSI open source. Therefore that is its effective definition. Which means > If you want to be specific about the meaning of open source, just say "OSI open source" or something. is wrong. "OSI open source" and "open source" are synonyms.
- mindcrime 6y ago
  The people have decided that "open source" means OSI open source. Therefore that is its effective definition. Which means Exactly. In common, everyday usage, when people talk about "Open Source" this is what the majority mean. It's not a "de jure" definition, but it is a "de facto" definition. Open Source means compliance with the OSD. There are terms for those other licenses - "shared source", "source available", etc. Use them if that's what you mean.
- konjin 6y ago
  >The people have decided that "open source" means OSI open source. I am the people. I do not agree. Now what?
  - mindcrime 6y ago
    * Now what?* Worst case? You walk through use life using terms in non-standard, idiosyncratic ways, and people are constantly confused by your speech, or argue with you because you don't have a shared understanding of the world.
    - shkkmo 6y ago
      Except it isn't really idiosyncratic since there appears to be widespread confusion as to the meaning of that term. You can't just hand wave that ambiguity away and pretend that only the OSI definition is understood and used. You have to accept the "open source" is an ambiguous term and you will need to use qualifiers or additional context if you want to avoid ambiguity when using that term.

m463 6y ago

from "Words to Avoid (or Use with Care) Because They Are Loaded or Confusing" “Open” Please avoid using the term “open” or “open source” as a substitute for “free software.” Those terms refer to a different set of views[1] based on different values. The free software movement campaigns for your freedom in your computing, as a matter of justice. The open source non-movement does not campaign for anything in this way. When referring to the open source views, it's correct to use that name, but please do not use that term when talking about us, our software, or our views—that leads people to suppose our views are similar to theirs. Instead of open source, we say, free software or free (libre) software. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open [1] "Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software" https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

wizzwizz4 6y ago
I don't see how this is relevant.
- _carbyau_ 6y ago
  So many comments in this thread seem to conflate Open Source definition with the original Free Software definition. The companies who have restrictions on how their Open Source software can be used can technically be Open Source (depending on your definition) while failing to be Free Software. The two links clarify that originally at least, they were not the same thing. This has been going on for a long time and hence as with many language phrases the use/connotation/definition may change over time. And so we have a HN comment fest over "What Really Is The Definition of Open Source?".
  - wizzwizz4 6y ago
    I see. I thought you were linking to them because you were also conflating the two.
    - 6y ago

ForHackernews 6y ago

The OSI was always an attempt to rebrand free software, get it away from its hippie roots, and make it palatable to big corporations. As far as I'm concerned, if they can play these language games, so can Elastic.

6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago

This sounds like "if A and B can't agree on a definition, terms are meaningless, so we need to use A's definition." Why not use B's definition? The purists saying "open source is a narrow thing" only distract conversations about licensing. Word meanings drift over time. We manage. Talk about issues instead of gatekeeping terms.