11 ms·

> 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 (s

> 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.
    - alexhutcheson 6y ago
      Creative Commons licenses aren’t recommend for software[1], but you can use the Zero-Clause BSD License[2] to satisfy the same goals as CC0. [1] https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-comm... [2] https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD
      - detaro 6y ago
        from [1] > Also, the CC0 Public Domain Dedication is GPL-compatible and acceptable for software. For details, see the relevant CC0 FAQ entry.
        alexhutcheson 6y ago
        Ah didn’t realize that. Thanks for pointing it out.
        GoblinSlayer 6y ago
        It's applicable to software, but it's not a good software license due to reservation of patent rights. CC was designed for scientific publications, in that context reservation of patent rights has an understandable meaning, but when applied to software it takes a very different unintended meaning.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - apotheon 6y ago
      How about "copyfree"? https://copyfree.org https://copyfree.org https://copyfree.org/standard https://copyfree.org/standard (I also consider anything that fits the Open Source Definition to be "open source" and differentiate things actually approved by the OSI as "OSI certified", which should in principle be a subset of "open source".)
- nemothekid 6y ago
  >otherwise you have a lot of situations where it's not technically OSI "Open Source" but the source is literally open. Just because the source is available to you doesn't mean it's open source though. There are many companies that have the source code to Windows, but I would never describe Windows as being open source. That where the pedanticism comes in.
dragonwriter 6y ago
Definition #1 is, while imprecise, more consistent with OSI open source than “source available”; “intellectual property” is a set of exclusive rights, not the content to which the rights apply—“source available” provides the content to the public, but not necessarily any substantial subset (or even necessarily any) of the rights constituting intellectual property. > Other people prefer to use other definitions to elevate debates. No, they'd prefer other definitions to obfuscate differences, specifically, when trying to define “open source” as equivalent to “sourve available” to erase the distinction that having separate terms with distinct definitions provides.

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.
  - alexhutcheson 6y ago
    Creative Commons licenses aren’t recommend for software[1], but you can use the Zero-Clause BSD License[2] to satisfy the same goals as CC0. [1] https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-comm... [2] https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD
    - detaro 6y ago
      from [1] > Also, the CC0 Public Domain Dedication is GPL-compatible and acceptable for software. For details, see the relevant CC0 FAQ entry.
      - alexhutcheson 6y ago
        Ah didn’t realize that. Thanks for pointing it out.
      - GoblinSlayer 6y ago
        It's applicable to software, but it's not a good software license due to reservation of patent rights. CC was designed for scientific publications, in that context reservation of patent rights has an understandable meaning, but when applied to software it takes a very different unintended meaning.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - apotheon 6y ago
    How about "copyfree"? https://copyfree.org https://copyfree.org https://copyfree.org/standard https://copyfree.org/standard (I also consider anything that fits the Open Source Definition to be "open source" and differentiate things actually approved by the OSI as "OSI certified", which should in principle be a subset of "open source".)
nemothekid 6y ago
>otherwise you have a lot of situations where it's not technically OSI "Open Source" but the source is literally open. Just because the source is available to you doesn't mean it's open source though. There are many companies that have the source code to Windows, but I would never describe Windows as being open source. That where the pedanticism comes in.

dragonwriter 6y ago

Definition #1 is, while imprecise, more consistent with OSI open source than “source available”; “intellectual property” is a set of exclusive rights, not the content to which the rights apply—“source available” provides the content to the public, but not necessarily any substantial subset (or even necessarily any) of the rights constituting intellectual property. > Other people prefer to use other definitions to elevate debates. No, they'd prefer other definitions to obfuscate differences, specifically, when trying to define “open source” as equivalent to “sourve available” to erase the distinction that having separate terms with distinct definitions provides.