3 ms·

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 definitio

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.

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.