5 ms·

True, but the term has evolved nonetheless, and its present meaning is related to the OSI. Language evolves. I would argue that this definition has settled upon

True, but the term has evolved nonetheless, and its present meaning is related to the OSI. Language evolves. I would argue that this definition has settled upon a useful, objective meaning, and that its utility ought to be preserved by using new terms (or other, existing terms, like "source available") rather than trying to force its further "evolution" in whatever direction happens to be convenient for your project and/or commercial interest.

gpm 5y ago
I would and do argue that the vast majority of people, and even the majority of software developers, have never heard of the OSI's pet definition of the words "open source" and use the naive (and incidentally pre-existing) definition of "source is open for public viewing".
kongin 5y ago
>and its present meaning is related to the OSI Not unless you work for the OSI, least you forget they actually tried to get it patented and got rejected: https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p... I'm happy for OSI proponents to use the legally approved version of licenses that support their ideology as OSI approved licenses. I will keep using open source to means software where the source code is open, as has been the case since the 80s and 90s, the latter of which I was around to use before OSI popped up and tried to privatize language for their own benefit.
arp242 5y ago
The problem with "open source" is that it has a fairly obvious meaning: it uses the noun "source", which is what everyone uses to describe source code, and combines it with the very common adjective "open" that's used for all sorts of things and generally means "has access to". You can educate millions and millions of people to steer them away from the obvious meaning to the specific meaning, but "Free Software" has been trying to do that for a lot longer with extremely limited success. Overall, it seems like a distraction to me, and if you want to promote Free Software/Open Source then there are more effective ways to do that than argueing semantics. Also, IMHO "source available" is probably a necessary stepping stone to open source in the grand scheme of things. If all software would be source available tomorrow then this would be a huge win: election machines can be audited, we will know how good (or bad) government software is, I can judge software from Company X before deciding to do business with them, I can fix bugs that are a huge issue for me myself instead of just asking "please fix this bug that's a huge deal for me", etc. etc. After this we can move on further.
- pritambaral 5y ago
  > If all software would be source available tomorrow then this would be a huge win: election machines can be audited, we will know how good (or bad) government software is, I can judge software from Company X before deciding to do business with them, I can fix bugs that are a huge issue for me myself instead of just asking "please fix this bug that's a huge deal for me", etc. etc. After this we can move on further. Note: "Source available" does not mean "source buildable". In fact, "source available" provides nearly nothing except the ability to "see" some source code. Not modify, not use with modifications, not distribute. TBF, "Open Source" also does not directly or always imply those freedoms (see TiVo and its GPLv2 source code you cannot run on TiVo devices); but it and "Free Software" are more commonly associated with these freedoms. "Source available", historically, less so.

gpm 5y ago

I would and do argue that the vast majority of people, and even the majority of software developers, have never heard of the OSI's pet definition of the words "open source" and use the naive (and incidentally pre-existing) definition of "source is open for public viewing".

kongin 5y ago

>and its present meaning is related to the OSI Not unless you work for the OSI, least you forget they actually tried to get it patented and got rejected: https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p... I'm happy for OSI proponents to use the legally approved version of licenses that support their ideology as OSI approved licenses. I will keep using open source to means software where the source code is open, as has been the case since the 80s and 90s, the latter of which I was around to use before OSI popped up and tried to privatize language for their own benefit.

arp242 5y ago

The problem with "open source" is that it has a fairly obvious meaning: it uses the noun "source", which is what everyone uses to describe source code, and combines it with the very common adjective "open" that's used for all sorts of things and generally means "has access to". You can educate millions and millions of people to steer them away from the obvious meaning to the specific meaning, but "Free Software" has been trying to do that for a lot longer with extremely limited success. Overall, it seems like a distraction to me, and if you want to promote Free Software/Open Source then there are more effective ways to do that than argueing semantics. Also, IMHO "source available" is probably a necessary stepping stone to open source in the grand scheme of things. If all software would be source available tomorrow then this would be a huge win: election machines can be audited, we will know how good (or bad) government software is, I can judge software from Company X before deciding to do business with them, I can fix bugs that are a huge issue for me myself instead of just asking "please fix this bug that's a huge deal for me", etc. etc. After this we can move on further.

pritambaral 5y ago
> If all software would be source available tomorrow then this would be a huge win: election machines can be audited, we will know how good (or bad) government software is, I can judge software from Company X before deciding to do business with them, I can fix bugs that are a huge issue for me myself instead of just asking "please fix this bug that's a huge deal for me", etc. etc. After this we can move on further. Note: "Source available" does not mean "source buildable". In fact, "source available" provides nearly nothing except the ability to "see" some source code. Not modify, not use with modifications, not distribute. TBF, "Open Source" also does not directly or always imply those freedoms (see TiVo and its GPLv2 source code you cannot run on TiVo devices); but it and "Free Software" are more commonly associated with these freedoms. "Source available", historically, less so.