8 ms·

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 us

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.
- lmm 6y ago
  If we don't want the idea to be gradually chipped away until it's meaningless then yes, we need to draw a line in the sand and say that open source can have these restrictions but not those restrictions. And thankfully we already have that: the OSI's definition, Debian's DFSG, and the FSF's Free Software Decision are all substantially equivalent and represent a clear consensus on what is and isn't open-source; one that a lot of care and thought have already gone into.
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.

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.
lmm 6y ago
If we don't want the idea to be gradually chipped away until it's meaningless then yes, we need to draw a line in the sand and say that open source can have these restrictions but not those restrictions. And thankfully we already have that: the OSI's definition, Debian's DFSG, and the FSF's Free Software Decision are all substantially equivalent and represent a clear consensus on what is and isn't open-source; one that a lot of care and thought have already gone into.

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.