3 ms·

See here for usages of "open source" prior to 1998, when OSI was founded: http://groups.google.com/groups/search?as_q=&as_epq=open+source&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&s

See here for usages of "open source" prior to 1998, when OSI was founded: http://groups.google.com/groups/search?as_q=&as_epq=open+source&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&scoring=&lr=&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=&as_drrb=b&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=31&as_maxm=12&as_maxy=1997 http://groups.google.com/groups/search?as_q=&as_epq=open... You can see on the first page results from 94, 95, 96 all used to refer to "open source" code, i.e., a program whose source code was available to users. That's just the first page. The term had gained sufficient prevalence to be mentioned in a press release from 1996. There's only one hit on the first page (for me, at least) that refers to "open source" in another context ("unable to open source file"). That's just the first page, there are many more pages of hits.

kragen 15y ago
That's not '"open source" code', that's 'open "source code"', and almost all the hits Google finds for "open source code" are duplicates of a single press release about Willows TWIN. The rest of the page (for me) is almost entirely about open-source intelligence, which has nothing at all to do with software or source code, but rather refers to reports that CIA and related agencies produce by reading public information like what's in the newspapers. That's what the Open Source Solutions 1994 conference was, for example. You can save yourself the trouble of looking through the many more pages of hits. I've done it before.
- chc 15y ago
  The word "source" is short for "source code." They aren't exactly distinct things, so that is really splitting hairs. If we acknowledge that use of "open," then "open source" falls right out of it. And there are lot of the dupes you're talking about, but if you filter those out in your search, you'll see that is not the only occurrence. Quickly sifting through, I found these: From 1995 we have a guy asking for a "modeler with open source code." 1996 has Caldera advocating "an open-source code model" (it even has the hyphen in the right place!), as well as an essay about "Open Source Code and the Early Development of Unix." The former case is interesting because it explicitly defines open-source code as source code that is openly distributed, and clarifies that a small fee is required to sell derived products commercially. (So SCO actually claimed the term before OSI did!) And 1997 has a discussion about whether "open source cryptography" is better than "proprietary … cryptography" (and in which "published" is used as a synonym for "open source"). So it appears that the term was much less common before OSI — but it was used to talk about source code you could read, long before they came along with their definition.
  - kragen 15y ago
    > "an open-source code model" (it even has the hyphen in the right place!) I think in that case both "open-source" and "code" are modifying "model", so it's still not the same thing. > And 1997 has a discussion about whether "open source cryptography" is better than "proprietary … cryptography" (and in which "published" is used as a synonym for "open source"). That's from the spook community, which uses "open source" to mean "publicly known information", and they're talking about cryptosystems, not source code. > The word "source" is short for "source code." They aren't exactly distinct things, so that is really splitting hairs. Someone could have potentially used the word "source" as short for "source code" in the phrase "open source" before Chris Peterson did in that meeting, but I haven't found any cases of that happening. Not a single one. The whole point is that the phrase "open source" now has a specific meaning not derivable from the meanings of its component words, much like "source code", "pro-choice", or "death row". If a Congressperson declares that they're "pro-choice" but votes to amend the Constitution to prohibit abortion, or someone claimed that they were fulfilling their contractual obligation to provide you with "source code" by giving you the SKUs they use to order office supplies, you'd be justifiably angry at the deception. If you find a quote from someone in 1958 using the term "pro-free-choice" to mean "opposed to racial segregation", it does not make any less dishonest a hypothetical use of the term "pro-choice" with that meaning today.
  - bad_user 15y ago
    The word "source" is short for "source code." No, the word "source" is short for "source", as in ... any thing or place from which something comes, arises, or is obtained; Like how sheet music is a source for learning to play new songs. Who's hijacking the term now?
    - tripzilch 15y ago
      You are, because "source" in "open source" refers to "source code", "open source code". It's not code that originates from a source that's "open" .. what does that even mean? It means the source code is open to the public.

kragen 15y ago

That's not '"open source" code', that's 'open "source code"', and almost all the hits Google finds for "open source code" are duplicates of a single press release about Willows TWIN. The rest of the page (for me) is almost entirely about open-source intelligence, which has nothing at all to do with software or source code, but rather refers to reports that CIA and related agencies produce by reading public information like what's in the newspapers. That's what the Open Source Solutions 1994 conference was, for example. You can save yourself the trouble of looking through the many more pages of hits. I've done it before.

chc 15y ago
The word "source" is short for "source code." They aren't exactly distinct things, so that is really splitting hairs. If we acknowledge that use of "open," then "open source" falls right out of it. And there are lot of the dupes you're talking about, but if you filter those out in your search, you'll see that is not the only occurrence. Quickly sifting through, I found these: From 1995 we have a guy asking for a "modeler with open source code." 1996 has Caldera advocating "an open-source code model" (it even has the hyphen in the right place!), as well as an essay about "Open Source Code and the Early Development of Unix." The former case is interesting because it explicitly defines open-source code as source code that is openly distributed, and clarifies that a small fee is required to sell derived products commercially. (So SCO actually claimed the term before OSI did!) And 1997 has a discussion about whether "open source cryptography" is better than "proprietary … cryptography" (and in which "published" is used as a synonym for "open source"). So it appears that the term was much less common before OSI — but it was used to talk about source code you could read, long before they came along with their definition.
- kragen 15y ago
  > "an open-source code model" (it even has the hyphen in the right place!) I think in that case both "open-source" and "code" are modifying "model", so it's still not the same thing. > And 1997 has a discussion about whether "open source cryptography" is better than "proprietary … cryptography" (and in which "published" is used as a synonym for "open source"). That's from the spook community, which uses "open source" to mean "publicly known information", and they're talking about cryptosystems, not source code. > The word "source" is short for "source code." They aren't exactly distinct things, so that is really splitting hairs. Someone could have potentially used the word "source" as short for "source code" in the phrase "open source" before Chris Peterson did in that meeting, but I haven't found any cases of that happening. Not a single one. The whole point is that the phrase "open source" now has a specific meaning not derivable from the meanings of its component words, much like "source code", "pro-choice", or "death row". If a Congressperson declares that they're "pro-choice" but votes to amend the Constitution to prohibit abortion, or someone claimed that they were fulfilling their contractual obligation to provide you with "source code" by giving you the SKUs they use to order office supplies, you'd be justifiably angry at the deception. If you find a quote from someone in 1958 using the term "pro-free-choice" to mean "opposed to racial segregation", it does not make any less dishonest a hypothetical use of the term "pro-choice" with that meaning today.
- bad_user 15y ago
  The word "source" is short for "source code." No, the word "source" is short for "source", as in ... any thing or place from which something comes, arises, or is obtained; Like how sheet music is a source for learning to play new songs. Who's hijacking the term now?
  - tripzilch 15y ago
    You are, because "source" in "open source" refers to "source code", "open source code". It's not code that originates from a source that's "open" .. what does that even mean? It means the source code is open to the public.