5 ms·

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

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.
      - chrisseaton 5y ago
        > The “open source” label was created at a strategy session held on February 3rd, 1998 You can see the term gaining popularity prior to 3 Feb 1998, and there are references to for example BSD being 'open source' as far back as 1990. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=open+source%2Copen-source%2Cfree+software&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1970&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Copen%20source%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3BOpen%20Source%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bopen%20source%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BOpen%20source%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Copen%20-%20source%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bopen%20-%20source%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BOpen%20-%20source%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BOpen%20-%20Source%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cfree%20software%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bfree%20software%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BFree%20Software%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BFree%20software%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BFREE%20SOFTWARE%3B%2Cc0 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=open+source%2C... Via https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html.

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.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      > The “open source” label was created at a strategy session held on February 3rd, 1998 You can see the term gaining popularity prior to 3 Feb 1998, and there are references to for example BSD being 'open source' as far back as 1990. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=open+source%2Copen-source%2Cfree+software&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1970&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Copen%20source%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3BOpen%20Source%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bopen%20source%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BOpen%20source%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Copen%20-%20source%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bopen%20-%20source%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BOpen%20-%20source%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BOpen%20-%20Source%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cfree%20software%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bfree%20software%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BFree%20Software%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BFree%20software%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BFREE%20SOFTWARE%3B%2Cc0 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=open+source%2C... Via https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html.