4 ms·

You appear to be splitting hairs here. Most folks I know frequently say "source" as a shorthand for "source code". It's not a big leap to tack on "open" in fr

You appear to be splitting hairs here. Most folks I know frequently say "source" as a shorthand for "source code". It's not a big leap to tack on "open" in front of that when you mean the source is available for inspection by those outside the person/company who developed it (i.e., not "closed"). If you want to claim that OSI popularized the phrase and imbued it with a very specific meaning, you'd probably have a point, but I don't see how they could lay claim to ownership of such a generic term. At the very least it seems out of bounds to be accusing someone of being "dishonest" about it and "rewriting history".

kragen 15y ago
> It's not a big leap to tack on "open" in front of that when you mean the source is available for inspection by those outside the person/company who developed it (i.e., not "closed"). Yet digging through Usenet, web, and mailing-list archives has not, so far, found a single example of anyone making that leap prior to the 1998 meeting.
- ShirtlessRod 15y ago
  Well, the examples that have been found you have explained away by careful parsing of the language in such a way as to ignore them. Given your fervor on this particular subject I don't think there is evidence you would accept. Here's another one: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.protocols.ibm/browse_thread/thread/58651fe1538c90b4/2d74be4d769b9b53?q=open+source http://groups.google.com/group/comp.protocols.ibm/browse_thr... Frankly, it really is just baffling to me that you are defending this so aggressively to the point of accusing others of outright dishonesty when discussing it. Do you really think that appropriate?
  - kragen 15y ago
    > Here's another one That one is interesting. The most plausible interpretation is that it is actually a counterexample! He very likely means "source code" and not, say, "FTP site". > Frankly, it really is just baffling to me that you are defending this so aggressively to the point of accusing others of outright dishonesty when discussing it. Do you really think that appropriate? Yes. It's like "pro-choice" or like "organic farming": one group of people is using this term with a specific idiomatic meaning, and there are other people who want to associate themselves with that meaning in order to free-ride off the goodwill that comes with it, but without paying the price. An anti-abortion politician isn't "pro-choice" because they support school vouchers, an apricot sprayed with malathion isn't "organic" because it contains carbon compounds, and a free-for-noncommercial-use program isn't "open-source" because its source code isn't secret.
    - ShirtlessRod 15y ago
      We're obviously going to just disagree on this one, but I do think it's unfortunate that you still feel the need to associate some ulterior motive to people who don't agree with you ("free-ride off the goodwill"). You adhere to a very specific definition of the phrase and there's nothing wrong with that. However, attacking others who do not is unnecessary as well as unhelpful for your cause.

kragen 15y ago

> It's not a big leap to tack on "open" in front of that when you mean the source is available for inspection by those outside the person/company who developed it (i.e., not "closed"). Yet digging through Usenet, web, and mailing-list archives has not, so far, found a single example of anyone making that leap prior to the 1998 meeting.

ShirtlessRod 15y ago
Well, the examples that have been found you have explained away by careful parsing of the language in such a way as to ignore them. Given your fervor on this particular subject I don't think there is evidence you would accept. Here's another one: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.protocols.ibm/browse_thread/thread/58651fe1538c90b4/2d74be4d769b9b53?q=open+source http://groups.google.com/group/comp.protocols.ibm/browse_thr... Frankly, it really is just baffling to me that you are defending this so aggressively to the point of accusing others of outright dishonesty when discussing it. Do you really think that appropriate?
- kragen 15y ago
  > Here's another one That one is interesting. The most plausible interpretation is that it is actually a counterexample! He very likely means "source code" and not, say, "FTP site". > Frankly, it really is just baffling to me that you are defending this so aggressively to the point of accusing others of outright dishonesty when discussing it. Do you really think that appropriate? Yes. It's like "pro-choice" or like "organic farming": one group of people is using this term with a specific idiomatic meaning, and there are other people who want to associate themselves with that meaning in order to free-ride off the goodwill that comes with it, but without paying the price. An anti-abortion politician isn't "pro-choice" because they support school vouchers, an apricot sprayed with malathion isn't "organic" because it contains carbon compounds, and a free-for-noncommercial-use program isn't "open-source" because its source code isn't secret.
  - ShirtlessRod 15y ago
    We're obviously going to just disagree on this one, but I do think it's unfortunate that you still feel the need to associate some ulterior motive to people who don't agree with you ("free-ride off the goodwill"). You adhere to a very specific definition of the phrase and there's nothing wrong with that. However, attacking others who do not is unnecessary as well as unhelpful for your cause.