4 ms·

> I think they’re confusing source licensing with a development methodology. Which is why as nitpicky as it sounds, we should really be making an effort not to

> I think they’re confusing source licensing with a development methodology. Which is why as nitpicky as it sounds, we should really be making an effort not to use the term "open source" to refer to both.

maccard 5y ago
There are dozens of edge cases that you can argue; is redistribution allowed, is attribution required, etc. - open source is a blanket statement and is perfectly suitable as a term IMO.
- turbinerneiter 5y ago
  Open source is a well defined term that means a very specific thing. The definition is exactly 1 sentence long. It's not a blanket term at all. Something is Open Sources if the code is published under a license that grants the user the right to study, change and redistribute to anyone and for any purpose. There is other similar things, like source available, or stricter subsets like Free Software. And there is many things associated with open source, like collaborative development in public, community building and so on.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    > Something is Open Sources if the code is published under a license that grants the user the right to study, change and redistribute to anyone and for any purpose. That's how some people define open source. Other people use it to mean being able to see the source.
    - turbinerneiter 5y ago
      They are wrong. The term for that is source available. There is absolutely no reason to have any doubt about the true meaning of the term when this definition is on every search result on Googles first page, in Wikipedia, when it's that name of a non-profit that defines it like that and when the page that literally is called opensource.org defines it like that.
      - chrisseaton 5y ago
        Having a domain name doesn’t mean you own a term.
        turbinerneiter 5y ago
        Find me a reputable source on the same level as Wikipedia, the open source foundation or red hat that defines open source in a different way. This is not about owning a term, it's simply about the fact that term had a definition that people agree on. The fact that some people don't know about that definition or that some people don't agree with it doesn't change it.
        rpdillon 5y ago
        A term with no agreed meaning has limited utility. We have an official definition. I don't understand how the community benefits from making the definition more ambiguous and murky. Is there a group that's heavily invested conflating open source with source-available? I just don't understand who wins in that scenario.
        chrisseaton 5y ago
        > We have an official definition. Lol how is it 'official'? Who officiated it?
        rpdillon 5y ago
        You can read the history of the term Open Source here: https://opensource.org/history https://opensource.org/history The folks who coined the term were among those that led the OSI. > The “open source” label was created at a strategy session held on February 3rd, 1998 in Palo Alto, California, shortly after the announcement of the release of the Netscape source code. The strategy session grew from a realization that the attention around the Netscape announcement had created an opportunity to educate and advocate for the superiority of an open development process. > Two of those present at the Palo Alto meeting (Eric Raymond and Michael Tiemann) would later serve as presidents of OSI, and other attendees (including Todd Andersen, Jon “maddog” Hall, Larry Augustin, and Sam Ockman) became key early supporters of the organization. These folks went on to create the Open Source Definition: https://opensource.org/docs/osd https://opensource.org/docs/osd The folks who created the term started an organization named after the term, created an official definition, and registered the domain. If that's not enough for us to have an official definition, what does it take? And what do we gain by arguing about this? Reading your posts in this thread (and elsewhere), my impression is that you're invested in insisting that "open source" doesn't have that definition, but I can't figure out what your motivation is. FWIW, my motivation is to create an environment where terms have precise meaning so we can discuss complex issues (like copyright, licensing, development models, etc.) effectively. If we're wrangling over terms and language all the time, communication becomes much more difficult.
    - fsflover 5y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
  - zepto 5y ago
    > redistribute to anyone and for any purpose. This is certainly not a universally accepted definition. ‘Open source’ has long been a generic term for any situation in which the source is available. People may want it to be a term of art with a technical definition, but that isn’t how it is used in general.

maccard 5y ago

There are dozens of edge cases that you can argue; is redistribution allowed, is attribution required, etc. - open source is a blanket statement and is perfectly suitable as a term IMO.

turbinerneiter 5y ago
Open source is a well defined term that means a very specific thing. The definition is exactly 1 sentence long. It's not a blanket term at all. Something is Open Sources if the code is published under a license that grants the user the right to study, change and redistribute to anyone and for any purpose. There is other similar things, like source available, or stricter subsets like Free Software. And there is many things associated with open source, like collaborative development in public, community building and so on.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > Something is Open Sources if the code is published under a license that grants the user the right to study, change and redistribute to anyone and for any purpose. That's how some people define open source. Other people use it to mean being able to see the source.
  - turbinerneiter 5y ago
    They are wrong. The term for that is source available. There is absolutely no reason to have any doubt about the true meaning of the term when this definition is on every search result on Googles first page, in Wikipedia, when it's that name of a non-profit that defines it like that and when the page that literally is called opensource.org defines it like that.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      Having a domain name doesn’t mean you own a term.
      - turbinerneiter 5y ago
        Find me a reputable source on the same level as Wikipedia, the open source foundation or red hat that defines open source in a different way. This is not about owning a term, it's simply about the fact that term had a definition that people agree on. The fact that some people don't know about that definition or that some people don't agree with it doesn't change it.
      - rpdillon 5y ago
        A term with no agreed meaning has limited utility. We have an official definition. I don't understand how the community benefits from making the definition more ambiguous and murky. Is there a group that's heavily invested conflating open source with source-available? I just don't understand who wins in that scenario.
        chrisseaton 5y ago
        > We have an official definition. Lol how is it 'official'? Who officiated it?
        rpdillon 5y ago
        You can read the history of the term Open Source here: https://opensource.org/history https://opensource.org/history The folks who coined the term were among those that led the OSI. > The “open source” label was created at a strategy session held on February 3rd, 1998 in Palo Alto, California, shortly after the announcement of the release of the Netscape source code. The strategy session grew from a realization that the attention around the Netscape announcement had created an opportunity to educate and advocate for the superiority of an open development process. > Two of those present at the Palo Alto meeting (Eric Raymond and Michael Tiemann) would later serve as presidents of OSI, and other attendees (including Todd Andersen, Jon “maddog” Hall, Larry Augustin, and Sam Ockman) became key early supporters of the organization. These folks went on to create the Open Source Definition: https://opensource.org/docs/osd https://opensource.org/docs/osd The folks who created the term started an organization named after the term, created an official definition, and registered the domain. If that's not enough for us to have an official definition, what does it take? And what do we gain by arguing about this? Reading your posts in this thread (and elsewhere), my impression is that you're invested in insisting that "open source" doesn't have that definition, but I can't figure out what your motivation is. FWIW, my motivation is to create an environment where terms have precise meaning so we can discuss complex issues (like copyright, licensing, development models, etc.) effectively. If we're wrangling over terms and language all the time, communication becomes much more difficult.
  - fsflover 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
- zepto 5y ago
  > redistribute to anyone and for any purpose. This is certainly not a universally accepted definition. ‘Open source’ has long been a generic term for any situation in which the source is available. People may want it to be a term of art with a technical definition, but that isn’t how it is used in general.