3 ms·

Except "open source" does have a meaning - specifically, the one defined by the Open Source Initiative.

tremon 6y ago
Stallman already wrote years ago why "open source" was a bad name. From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... : The official definition of “open source software” [..] agrees with our definition in most cases. However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software”—and the one most people seem to think it means—is “You can look at the source code.” That criterion is much weaker than the free software definition, much weaker also than the official definition of open source. [..] Since the obvious meaning for “open source” is not the meaning that its advocates intend, the result is that most people misunderstand the term.
- remram 6y ago
  "Free" is also ambiguous in English, even more than "open". I suppose "libre" is explicit but also not an actual common word. "Open" is clear, widely accepted by the community including businesses, and is defended by the Open Source Initiative (think of them what you will, they do a good job of keeping that definition true, by doing things such as approving licenses). "Open" has also been extended to other areas, such as "open science" (which does not refer to science for which a paper is available, but to actual reusable science). I don't see any problem with "open", other than the fact RMS doesn't like it.
  - garmaine 6y ago
    > "Open" has also been extended to other areas, such as "open science" (which does not refer to science for which a paper is available, but to actual reusable science). That meaning predates the use of "open" to describe software, hence why "open source" isn't that great of a term for something truly new. It co-opts the much older term "open source" which means freely available through non-protected sources. Like, in the intelligence services "open sources" has meant non-classified, non-restricted sources. There's a similar meaning in journalism.
andi999 6y ago
'open' and 'source' are also just two words of the English language which have an implied meaning when put together. I do not think any initiative can ban the normal meaning of language. It is like saying the 'real beef initiative' declares the meaning of the word 'real beef' to only apply to kobe beef. Also how would you actually call software where the source is open but does not fulfill the osi criteria?
- yellowapple 6y ago
  > 'open' and 'source' are also just two words of the English language which have an implied meaning when put together. Right, which is further evidence against the assertion that '"open source" means absolutely nothing'. > Also how would you actually call software where the source is open but does not fulfill the osi criteria? I tend to use the term "transparent software". Goes hand-in-hand with my catchphrase[0] 'round these parts. Basically: if I can see the source code (and therefore can independently audit it, or hire someone to do so), then it's transparent and can (potentially) be trusted, even if the license infringes on my freedoms around that source code (modification, redistribution, etc.). ---- [0]: "transparency is a dependency of trust": https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=transparency%20is%20a%20dependency%20of%20trust&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

Stallman already wrote years ago why "open source" was a bad name. From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... : The official definition of “open source software” [..] agrees with our definition in most cases. However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software”—and the one most people seem to think it means—is “You can look at the source code.” That criterion is much weaker than the free software definition, much weaker also than the official definition of open source. [..] Since the obvious meaning for “open source” is not the meaning that its advocates intend, the result is that most people misunderstand the term.

remram 6y ago
"Free" is also ambiguous in English, even more than "open". I suppose "libre" is explicit but also not an actual common word. "Open" is clear, widely accepted by the community including businesses, and is defended by the Open Source Initiative (think of them what you will, they do a good job of keeping that definition true, by doing things such as approving licenses). "Open" has also been extended to other areas, such as "open science" (which does not refer to science for which a paper is available, but to actual reusable science). I don't see any problem with "open", other than the fact RMS doesn't like it.
- garmaine 6y ago
  > "Open" has also been extended to other areas, such as "open science" (which does not refer to science for which a paper is available, but to actual reusable science). That meaning predates the use of "open" to describe software, hence why "open source" isn't that great of a term for something truly new. It co-opts the much older term "open source" which means freely available through non-protected sources. Like, in the intelligence services "open sources" has meant non-classified, non-restricted sources. There's a similar meaning in journalism.

andi999 6y ago

'open' and 'source' are also just two words of the English language which have an implied meaning when put together. I do not think any initiative can ban the normal meaning of language. It is like saying the 'real beef initiative' declares the meaning of the word 'real beef' to only apply to kobe beef. Also how would you actually call software where the source is open but does not fulfill the osi criteria?

yellowapple 6y ago
> 'open' and 'source' are also just two words of the English language which have an implied meaning when put together. Right, which is further evidence against the assertion that '"open source" means absolutely nothing'. > Also how would you actually call software where the source is open but does not fulfill the osi criteria? I tend to use the term "transparent software". Goes hand-in-hand with my catchphrase[0] 'round these parts. Basically: if I can see the source code (and therefore can independently audit it, or hire someone to do so), then it's transparent and can (potentially) be trusted, even if the license infringes on my freedoms around that source code (modification, redistribution, etc.). ---- [0]: "transparency is a dependency of trust": https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=transparency%20is%20a%20dependency%20of%20trust&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]