9 ms·

> 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://opens

> 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
  - akagusu 6y ago
    The lack of ethics is what poisons the relationship between big tech companies and open source software and OSI was founded exactly for that, to strip the ethical principles of free/libre software and focus solely on technical and economical output. Thanks for remembering us who are OSI sponsors.
- samat 6y ago
  Do we really need a ‘legally clear’ definition of open source and free software? Both look like a common term. Want something you could claim ownership over and exact your specific meaning — pick some proper name like ‘Apache license’ or ‘lgpl license’ — pretty unambiguous.
  - pessimizer 6y ago
    The Apache are a group of culturally related Native American tribes in the Southwestern United States. I'm pretty sure none of their tribal authorities have given you a license for your software.
    - thewakalix 6y ago
      Are you unable to use any of the several free search engines available on the web, or are you just making a point? Either way, this is relevant: https://www.apache.org/apache-name/ https://www.apache.org/apache-name/
  - chc 6y ago
    Talking about categories of things are useful. This is like saying "Do we really need a term for two-wheeled vehicles driven by pedals? Just say you have a Cannondale or a Schwinn."
  - nemothekid 6y ago
    >Do we really need a ‘legally clear’ definition of open source and free software? The FSF has gone to great lengths to give a legally clear definition of free software. Something like the SSPL is not free software because it restricts Amazon's freedom to use the software. Stallman has always had an ideological goal when it came to Free software.
    - akagusu 6y ago
      Not just Stallman, but OSI was founded with an ideological goal too. It's goal is to strip ethics from software development and focus solely on technical and economical output for companies while Stallman and FSF had focused exactly on the ethics of software development.
- dataflow 6y ago
  > Given that OSI is the only body I know of with a clear definition No, you can also use the common definition of "open source" = "not closed-source" = "not (source unavailable)". Nobody has branded this definition but that doesn't make it any less legitimate. See definition #1 on dictionary.com for "closed-source", or #2 for "open-source". [1] [2] > I want people to use the OSI definition in order to elevate debates. This is... obviously biased? Other people prefer to use other definitions to elevate debates. You can't claim only the definition you like is able to elevate debates. And the parent is putting so much effort into arguing about the definition for the same reason you did in your comment. If it was so inconsequential, nobody would care. But evidently people find it a powerful thing, hence they argue about it. You can't simultaneously do that and then claim it's irrelevant. [1] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/closed-source https://www.dictionary.com/browse/closed-source [2] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/open-source https://www.dictionary.com/browse/open-source
  - ZephyrBlu 6y ago
    I think this is the most sensible and inclusive definition, otherwise you have a lot of situations where it's not technically OSI "Open Source" but the source is literally open. I've seen people use "source available" (?) in these situations, but I don't think it really makes sense because a lot of the time the only thing holding it back from being OSI "Open Source" is that their license has not been recognized by OSI.
    - chc 6y ago
      But now we need a new term to mean what "open-source" has meant for two decades, just because for some reason we wanted to be inclusive of licenses where the source is viewable but not open for use. And once we've redefined it, we've rendered all discussion of open-source deceptive for the period where it had its traditional meaning. I don't see any benefit to this inclusion.
      - jcheng 6y ago
        I would like a term that is inclusive of CC0.
- EarlKing 6y ago
  > What do you hope to achieve with this? Ok, you win, the term "open source" predates the OSI. So what? The point is to demonstrate that the term predates the OSI's alleged coinage thereof. They don't get to dictate language. This usage pre-exists them and obviously persists to this day. > 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. Really? It seemed quite useful to the people cited in each of those earlier prior references. They seemed to know exactly what they were talking about in context. You have only to read the messages to see that. > I want people to use the OSI definition in order to elevate debates. No, I think you want people to use the OSI definition because that conveniently includes certain clauses that have nothing to do with being open source, much like the FSF's definition of free software has nothing to do with freedom. > Endless debating the meaning of "open source" is a huge waste of time. You're right. Equally useless is attempting to privilege the OSI's definition over others. > 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. The numerous citations you are now aware of make you aware of others with a clear definition, so... No.
  - mindcrime 6y ago
    Equally useless is attempting to privilege the OSI's definition over others. The OSI definition was elevated over others (to the extent that there even are any others) by usage. You can dislike that all you want, but it doesn't change anything. Maybe, in time, usage will flip the meaning to something else... English has a way of doing that. But let's not stick our heads in the sand and pretend that current reality is anything other than what it is.
    - EarlKing 6y ago
      Language is not a popularity contest. Words and phrases can mean different things in different contexts. That the OSI came along and proffered its own definition does not mean we have to forget what came before and, moreover, is still current today. The OSI is an organization that co-opted a movement for their own business purposes... much like Eric Raymond co-opted the MIT Jargon File.
- markdown 6y ago
  > 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. Get with the program, dude. It's 2021, and the prevailing sentiment is that all definitions are now fluid. #GoForWoke #GoWokeOrGoHome
- _jal 6y ago
  > Given that OSI is the only body I know of with a clear definition If this is the only definition you're aware of, then apologies, but you're not the right person to be attempting to drive this discussion. If you're aware of the many others but do not consider them 'clear', then there is something else going on here, and I am starting to wander about agenda.
  - yesenadam 6y ago
    Ok, could you give the other (clear) definitions you are aware of? That might be actually useful here. Thanks.
    - EarlKing 6y ago
      "Open source" -- meaning the source is available and you can make modifications. You know, precisely what was in use before the OSI came along.
      - warkdarrior 6y ago
        Sure, that's a starting point. What is missing is who "you" is and what can be done with the modifications. If I say "source is available and you can make modifications, but only if you have red hair and live in Brazil", is this open source?
        arp242 6y ago
        I think the common-sense definition that a lot people use, especially people not deeply invested in the movement, is something along the lines of "the source is available for everyone to examine and make modifications to". It's not as specific as the OSI definition of course, and it doesn't say anything about redistribution and such, but that's okay and it doesn't really need to be IMO. Some vagueness is okay, and even with the OSI definition there is a huge difference between something like MIT and AGPL, both of whom are "open source".
        6y ago
- kube-system 6y ago
  > 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. Which is why you should call them "OSI Licenses" if you are referring to OSI licenses. > let's use theirs and move on to more substantial topics. This just isn't how English works. It isn't prescriptive. English is descriptive by nature and permits multiple uses, which have been around before OSI ever existed and are still valid.
  - Robotbeat 6y ago
    Sure, but I think companies are actually abusing the common definition of open source (which roughly has been the OSI one) by calling their source-available (but private licensed) stuff “open source.”
  - quadrangle 6y ago
    > Which is why you should call them "OSI Licenses" if you are referring to OSI licenses. 1. They aren't written by or copyright or anything to the OSI. They aren't "OSI Licenses" they are "OSI-approved licenses" 2. The Open Source Definition as clearly defined by OSI (and accepted as the only consensus definition in the world) does not include OSI-approved as a factor. So, a license can be Open Source without the OSI having done the active approval to validate that they see it as Open Source.
    - Thorrez 6y ago
      OSI-aligned might be a better term.
  - diffeomorphism 6y ago
    Which is why I am using "open source". You are free to use "non-OSI source" for your stuff. The only thing you are saying is that "open source" sounds nicer and you want it for your term instead. Too late.
    - kube-system 6y ago
- zapita 6y ago
  > 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. Here’s the Cambridge Dictionary’s definition of open source: “Open-source software is free to use, and the original program can be changed by anyone.” Merriam-Webster’s definition: “of software : having the source code freely available for possible modification and redistribution”
- ksec 6y ago
  >If we can't agree on a definition, it's impossible to know if we're actually talking about the same thing. We can certainly be more specific as to OSI Open Source rather than just Open Source? Wouldn't that solve the problem? We dont have to define every single term to have no ambiguity, but we can certainly have specific term for specific purposes.
- alexvoda 6y ago
  Just to be a bit snarky. The GP is correct. The problem is they are technically correct. And we all know what is said about this type of correct.
- CogitoCogito 6y ago
  You are correct that two people discussing "open source" should agree what they mean. You are not correct that what they agree on needs to match the OSI's definition. This issue can be solved by just asking someone what they mean.
pessimizer 6y ago
The important thing to take away from those references is that the term "open source" (not followed by the word "code") wasn't ever used in a consistent way, and that a bunch of people putting the word "open" to in front of "source code" is not the same thing. Open Source is something invented by and defined by the OSI, and I always capitalize it to sidestep the argument. If you were talking about "opening your source code," or developing new versions of your product with "open source code," no one would be confused, or if they were confused, they'd ask a follow up. The claim isn't that "open" and "source" were not words with meanings, the claim is that "open source" didn't describe anything specific until OSI made it. This argument is like complaining that people had windows in their houses before MS Windows.
- EarlKing 6y ago
  > the claim is that "open source" didn't describe anything specific until OSI made it. Yes, and that claim is wrong. Each of Usenet posts cited in Martin Tournoij's blog make reference to open source (code) in one manner or another... like this one, for example: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.os.linux/06y4cr6wr7o/fZPOOaIMCCYJ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.os.linux/06y4cr6wr7o/fZ... Quoting from the above: > The GPL and the open source code have made Linux the success that it is. That post is from 27 February 1993. I don't think you can seriously continue claiming it didn't mean anything specific.
  - dllthomas 6y ago
    Your quote is exactly an example of what the parent describes, so I think you miss their point. It is at best ambiguous, but to me clearly reads as constructed by applying the modifier "open" to the compound noun "source code". Someone talking about red fruit flies hasn't made any reference to red fruit. I make no claim, here, as to the ultimate disposition of the argument, I just don't like points being missed.
jordigh 6y ago
A lot of those usages of "open source" mean something different, totally unrelated to software. The word "source" there often doesn't mean source code, but more like sources of information, like when you cite your sources in a paper. That's the older meaning of "open source intelligence", meaning information you could get from freely available sources like phone books or maps. OSI even explicitly acknowledged those older meanings, and they also knew there were very scattered and inconsistent usage of the term before OSI. This still doesn't mean that OSI didn't coin the meaning of open source: a watered-down synonym for free software that de-emphasised its political philosophy. The fact remains, even openly acknowledged in Martin Tournojj's article when he looks at the growing usage of the term, that the reason we're all saying Open Source is because Tim O'Reilly bankrolled OSI's marketing campaign[1], and it was so effective, that they convinced us the term was so natural that it was our own idea. It wasn't. It was OSI's. Now, I get the urge to say "OSI doesn't get to decide!" because you don't want to be told what to say or what to believe. You want the word to have a different meaning. You're a free agent, dammit, nobody gets to tell you how to talk. Well, you're not as free as you think you are, because you wouldn't be talking this way if it weren't for a whole society that was influenced by the power of the wealth of one individual in the late 1990s. Your fashion choices are not are individual as you think they are[2], and neither is your language, nor even your beliefs. [1] https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-meme-hustler https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-meme-hustler [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja2fgquYTCg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja2fgquYTCg
alexvoda 6y ago
> All the OSI did was take an existing philosophy, scribble some new restrictions in crayon, and called it Open Source(tm)(c)(pat. pending). I am starting to believe that the greatest mistake of the FSF and OSI is exactly that. They did not trademark the terms. And this resulted in endless debates about free as in beer vs free as in speech (vs free as in puppies :P ) and on the meaning of open and on shared source vs open source. Stallman likes to call the GPL and copyleft a "hack" on top of copyright or a "hack" of copyright. Unfortunately Stallman was never opposed to IP as a whole. He is only opposed to software (only) pattents. If he were opposed to all IP he might have had the idea to "hack" the trademark system and use it to prevent all of this confusion using the threat of lawsuits. After all FLOSS is full of benevolent dictators. Now we are stuck with "free", "open" and "libre" freely being redefined to suit the PR needs of anyone.

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
- akagusu 6y ago
  The lack of ethics is what poisons the relationship between big tech companies and open source software and OSI was founded exactly for that, to strip the ethical principles of free/libre software and focus solely on technical and economical output. Thanks for remembering us who are OSI sponsors.
samat 6y ago
Do we really need a ‘legally clear’ definition of open source and free software? Both look like a common term. Want something you could claim ownership over and exact your specific meaning — pick some proper name like ‘Apache license’ or ‘lgpl license’ — pretty unambiguous.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  The Apache are a group of culturally related Native American tribes in the Southwestern United States. I'm pretty sure none of their tribal authorities have given you a license for your software.
  - thewakalix 6y ago
    Are you unable to use any of the several free search engines available on the web, or are you just making a point? Either way, this is relevant: https://www.apache.org/apache-name/ https://www.apache.org/apache-name/
- chc 6y ago
  Talking about categories of things are useful. This is like saying "Do we really need a term for two-wheeled vehicles driven by pedals? Just say you have a Cannondale or a Schwinn."
- nemothekid 6y ago
  >Do we really need a ‘legally clear’ definition of open source and free software? The FSF has gone to great lengths to give a legally clear definition of free software. Something like the SSPL is not free software because it restricts Amazon's freedom to use the software. Stallman has always had an ideological goal when it came to Free software.
  - akagusu 6y ago
    Not just Stallman, but OSI was founded with an ideological goal too. It's goal is to strip ethics from software development and focus solely on technical and economical output for companies while Stallman and FSF had focused exactly on the ethics of software development.
dataflow 6y ago
> Given that OSI is the only body I know of with a clear definition No, you can also use the common definition of "open source" = "not closed-source" = "not (source unavailable)". Nobody has branded this definition but that doesn't make it any less legitimate. See definition #1 on dictionary.com for "closed-source", or #2 for "open-source". [1] [2] > I want people to use the OSI definition in order to elevate debates. This is... obviously biased? Other people prefer to use other definitions to elevate debates. You can't claim only the definition you like is able to elevate debates. And the parent is putting so much effort into arguing about the definition for the same reason you did in your comment. If it was so inconsequential, nobody would care. But evidently people find it a powerful thing, hence they argue about it. You can't simultaneously do that and then claim it's irrelevant. [1] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/closed-source https://www.dictionary.com/browse/closed-source [2] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/open-source https://www.dictionary.com/browse/open-source
- ZephyrBlu 6y ago
  I think this is the most sensible and inclusive definition, otherwise you have a lot of situations where it's not technically OSI "Open Source" but the source is literally open. I've seen people use "source available" (?) in these situations, but I don't think it really makes sense because a lot of the time the only thing holding it back from being OSI "Open Source" is that their license has not been recognized by OSI.
  - chc 6y ago
    But now we need a new term to mean what "open-source" has meant for two decades, just because for some reason we wanted to be inclusive of licenses where the source is viewable but not open for use. And once we've redefined it, we've rendered all discussion of open-source deceptive for the period where it had its traditional meaning. I don't see any benefit to this inclusion.
    - jcheng 6y ago
      I would like a term that is inclusive of CC0.
EarlKing 6y ago
> What do you hope to achieve with this? Ok, you win, the term "open source" predates the OSI. So what? The point is to demonstrate that the term predates the OSI's alleged coinage thereof. They don't get to dictate language. This usage pre-exists them and obviously persists to this day. > 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. Really? It seemed quite useful to the people cited in each of those earlier prior references. They seemed to know exactly what they were talking about in context. You have only to read the messages to see that. > I want people to use the OSI definition in order to elevate debates. No, I think you want people to use the OSI definition because that conveniently includes certain clauses that have nothing to do with being open source, much like the FSF's definition of free software has nothing to do with freedom. > Endless debating the meaning of "open source" is a huge waste of time. You're right. Equally useless is attempting to privilege the OSI's definition over others. > 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. The numerous citations you are now aware of make you aware of others with a clear definition, so... No.
- mindcrime 6y ago
  Equally useless is attempting to privilege the OSI's definition over others. The OSI definition was elevated over others (to the extent that there even are any others) by usage. You can dislike that all you want, but it doesn't change anything. Maybe, in time, usage will flip the meaning to something else... English has a way of doing that. But let's not stick our heads in the sand and pretend that current reality is anything other than what it is.
  - EarlKing 6y ago
    Language is not a popularity contest. Words and phrases can mean different things in different contexts. That the OSI came along and proffered its own definition does not mean we have to forget what came before and, moreover, is still current today. The OSI is an organization that co-opted a movement for their own business purposes... much like Eric Raymond co-opted the MIT Jargon File.
markdown 6y ago
> 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. Get with the program, dude. It's 2021, and the prevailing sentiment is that all definitions are now fluid. #GoForWoke #GoWokeOrGoHome
_jal 6y ago
> Given that OSI is the only body I know of with a clear definition If this is the only definition you're aware of, then apologies, but you're not the right person to be attempting to drive this discussion. If you're aware of the many others but do not consider them 'clear', then there is something else going on here, and I am starting to wander about agenda.
- yesenadam 6y ago
  Ok, could you give the other (clear) definitions you are aware of? That might be actually useful here. Thanks.
  - EarlKing 6y ago
    "Open source" -- meaning the source is available and you can make modifications. You know, precisely what was in use before the OSI came along.
    - warkdarrior 6y ago
      Sure, that's a starting point. What is missing is who "you" is and what can be done with the modifications. If I say "source is available and you can make modifications, but only if you have red hair and live in Brazil", is this open source?
      - arp242 6y ago
        I think the common-sense definition that a lot people use, especially people not deeply invested in the movement, is something along the lines of "the source is available for everyone to examine and make modifications to". It's not as specific as the OSI definition of course, and it doesn't say anything about redistribution and such, but that's okay and it doesn't really need to be IMO. Some vagueness is okay, and even with the OSI definition there is a huge difference between something like MIT and AGPL, both of whom are "open source".
        6y ago
kube-system 6y ago
> 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. Which is why you should call them "OSI Licenses" if you are referring to OSI licenses. > let's use theirs and move on to more substantial topics. This just isn't how English works. It isn't prescriptive. English is descriptive by nature and permits multiple uses, which have been around before OSI ever existed and are still valid.
- Robotbeat 6y ago
  Sure, but I think companies are actually abusing the common definition of open source (which roughly has been the OSI one) by calling their source-available (but private licensed) stuff “open source.”
- quadrangle 6y ago
  > Which is why you should call them "OSI Licenses" if you are referring to OSI licenses. 1. They aren't written by or copyright or anything to the OSI. They aren't "OSI Licenses" they are "OSI-approved licenses" 2. The Open Source Definition as clearly defined by OSI (and accepted as the only consensus definition in the world) does not include OSI-approved as a factor. So, a license can be Open Source without the OSI having done the active approval to validate that they see it as Open Source.
  - Thorrez 6y ago
    OSI-aligned might be a better term.
- diffeomorphism 6y ago
  Which is why I am using "open source". You are free to use "non-OSI source" for your stuff. The only thing you are saying is that "open source" sounds nicer and you want it for your term instead. Too late.
  - kube-system 6y ago
zapita 6y ago
> 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. Here’s the Cambridge Dictionary’s definition of open source: “Open-source software is free to use, and the original program can be changed by anyone.” Merriam-Webster’s definition: “of software : having the source code freely available for possible modification and redistribution”
ksec 6y ago
>If we can't agree on a definition, it's impossible to know if we're actually talking about the same thing. We can certainly be more specific as to OSI Open Source rather than just Open Source? Wouldn't that solve the problem? We dont have to define every single term to have no ambiguity, but we can certainly have specific term for specific purposes.
alexvoda 6y ago
Just to be a bit snarky. The GP is correct. The problem is they are technically correct. And we all know what is said about this type of correct.
CogitoCogito 6y ago
You are correct that two people discussing "open source" should agree what they mean. You are not correct that what they agree on needs to match the OSI's definition. This issue can be solved by just asking someone what they mean.

pessimizer 6y ago

The important thing to take away from those references is that the term "open source" (not followed by the word "code") wasn't ever used in a consistent way, and that a bunch of people putting the word "open" to in front of "source code" is not the same thing. Open Source is something invented by and defined by the OSI, and I always capitalize it to sidestep the argument. If you were talking about "opening your source code," or developing new versions of your product with "open source code," no one would be confused, or if they were confused, they'd ask a follow up. The claim isn't that "open" and "source" were not words with meanings, the claim is that "open source" didn't describe anything specific until OSI made it. This argument is like complaining that people had windows in their houses before MS Windows.

EarlKing 6y ago
> the claim is that "open source" didn't describe anything specific until OSI made it. Yes, and that claim is wrong. Each of Usenet posts cited in Martin Tournoij's blog make reference to open source (code) in one manner or another... like this one, for example: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.os.linux/06y4cr6wr7o/fZPOOaIMCCYJ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.os.linux/06y4cr6wr7o/fZ... Quoting from the above: > The GPL and the open source code have made Linux the success that it is. That post is from 27 February 1993. I don't think you can seriously continue claiming it didn't mean anything specific.
- dllthomas 6y ago
  Your quote is exactly an example of what the parent describes, so I think you miss their point. It is at best ambiguous, but to me clearly reads as constructed by applying the modifier "open" to the compound noun "source code". Someone talking about red fruit flies hasn't made any reference to red fruit. I make no claim, here, as to the ultimate disposition of the argument, I just don't like points being missed.

jordigh 6y ago

A lot of those usages of "open source" mean something different, totally unrelated to software. The word "source" there often doesn't mean source code, but more like sources of information, like when you cite your sources in a paper. That's the older meaning of "open source intelligence", meaning information you could get from freely available sources like phone books or maps. OSI even explicitly acknowledged those older meanings, and they also knew there were very scattered and inconsistent usage of the term before OSI. This still doesn't mean that OSI didn't coin the meaning of open source: a watered-down synonym for free software that de-emphasised its political philosophy. The fact remains, even openly acknowledged in Martin Tournojj's article when he looks at the growing usage of the term, that the reason we're all saying Open Source is because Tim O'Reilly bankrolled OSI's marketing campaign[1], and it was so effective, that they convinced us the term was so natural that it was our own idea. It wasn't. It was OSI's. Now, I get the urge to say "OSI doesn't get to decide!" because you don't want to be told what to say or what to believe. You want the word to have a different meaning. You're a free agent, dammit, nobody gets to tell you how to talk. Well, you're not as free as you think you are, because you wouldn't be talking this way if it weren't for a whole society that was influenced by the power of the wealth of one individual in the late 1990s. Your fashion choices are not are individual as you think they are[2], and neither is your language, nor even your beliefs. [1] https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-meme-hustler https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-meme-hustler [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja2fgquYTCg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja2fgquYTCg

alexvoda 6y ago

> All the OSI did was take an existing philosophy, scribble some new restrictions in crayon, and called it Open Source(tm)(c)(pat. pending). I am starting to believe that the greatest mistake of the FSF and OSI is exactly that. They did not trademark the terms. And this resulted in endless debates about free as in beer vs free as in speech (vs free as in puppies :P ) and on the meaning of open and on shared source vs open source. Stallman likes to call the GPL and copyleft a "hack" on top of copyright or a "hack" of copyright. Unfortunately Stallman was never opposed to IP as a whole. He is only opposed to software (only) pattents. If he were opposed to all IP he might have had the idea to "hack" the trademark system and use it to prevent all of this confusion using the threat of lawsuits. After all FLOSS is full of benevolent dictators. Now we are stuck with "free", "open" and "libre" freely being redefined to suit the PR needs of anyone.