5 ms·

> 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

> 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.
  - Robotbeat 6y ago
    And companies releasing “open source” software which has hooks in it that put other companies in potential legal trouble (beyond their he usual GPL type stuff) are themselves co-opting the term for their own ends. It’s hiding behind “language flexibility” to use “open source” in this manner.
    - EarlKing 6y ago
      ...or they're using that phrase exactly as it was intended before the OSI got their hands on it.
      - Robotbeat 6y ago
        I haven't seen evidence of that.
        EarlKing 6y ago
        There's links to plenty of it over here[1] which I posted up-chat. [1] https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html
        Robotbeat 6y ago
        Your link doesn’t support your claim. Most of those seem closer to the OSI definition (BSD is the first one, GPL, Linux, etc) and the ones that might contradict it are rarer. The way most people have been using “open source” is a lot closer to OSI than these companies are claiming. It’s misleading to use a different definition nowadays. And I think that’s the actual intent. If it wasn’t, then they’d be perfectly fine with using another unambiguous term like “source available.” If there was a strong desire to be clear and not misleading, they’d use such a term.
  - mindcrime 6y ago
    Language is not a popularity contest. Words and phrases can mean different things in different contexts. Except.. it kinda is. I mean yes, it is obviously true that words can (and do) have multiple meanings. But within a given context, there are "generally accepted" definitions and there are idiosyncratic / obscure / unusual definitions. And in the kind of context we're talking about here, to use "Open Source' to mean anything other than what is defined by the OSD is to intentionally choose a non-standard, idiosyncratic definition. It wouldn't be reasonable for one to do that and then expect everybody else to understand / agree with their non-standard usage.
- madhadron 6y ago
  Naa. I was around when OSI was created. They weren't authoritative then, they're not authoritative now.
diffeomorphism 6y ago
"They" don't have to dictate anything. The point is that "Opensource" as currently used means something else than shared source. Freeware means something else than free software and free speech does not mean zero cost cellphones. Taken literally these words could mean something else, but they don't. And using them in a wrong, hoping that people will confuse them for something they like (free speech for phones is good, right?) is extremely dishonest.

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.
- Robotbeat 6y ago
  And companies releasing “open source” software which has hooks in it that put other companies in potential legal trouble (beyond their he usual GPL type stuff) are themselves co-opting the term for their own ends. It’s hiding behind “language flexibility” to use “open source” in this manner.
  - EarlKing 6y ago
    ...or they're using that phrase exactly as it was intended before the OSI got their hands on it.
    - Robotbeat 6y ago
      I haven't seen evidence of that.
      - EarlKing 6y ago
        There's links to plenty of it over here[1] which I posted up-chat. [1] https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html
        Robotbeat 6y ago
        Your link doesn’t support your claim. Most of those seem closer to the OSI definition (BSD is the first one, GPL, Linux, etc) and the ones that might contradict it are rarer. The way most people have been using “open source” is a lot closer to OSI than these companies are claiming. It’s misleading to use a different definition nowadays. And I think that’s the actual intent. If it wasn’t, then they’d be perfectly fine with using another unambiguous term like “source available.” If there was a strong desire to be clear and not misleading, they’d use such a term.
- mindcrime 6y ago
  Language is not a popularity contest. Words and phrases can mean different things in different contexts. Except.. it kinda is. I mean yes, it is obviously true that words can (and do) have multiple meanings. But within a given context, there are "generally accepted" definitions and there are idiosyncratic / obscure / unusual definitions. And in the kind of context we're talking about here, to use "Open Source' to mean anything other than what is defined by the OSD is to intentionally choose a non-standard, idiosyncratic definition. It wouldn't be reasonable for one to do that and then expect everybody else to understand / agree with their non-standard usage.
madhadron 6y ago
Naa. I was around when OSI was created. They weren't authoritative then, they're not authoritative now.

diffeomorphism 6y ago

"They" don't have to dictate anything. The point is that "Opensource" as currently used means something else than shared source. Freeware means something else than free software and free speech does not mean zero cost cellphones. Taken literally these words could mean something else, but they don't. And using them in a wrong, hoping that people will confuse them for something they like (free speech for phones is good, right?) is extremely dishonest.