3 ms·

This is really interesting. Specifically this quote "it’s false advertising to claim that software is “open source” when it’s not licensed under an open source

This is really interesting. Specifically this quote "it’s false advertising to claim that software is “open source” when it’s not licensed under an open source license". Also, is opensource.org and the OSI the only organization that can define it and if so should they be? To me this is more about false advertising and changing a license. Another reason to look at a tool like debricked for license management.

mkr-hn 5y ago
Think of this in terms of a brand defending their trademark to avoid losing it through dilution. It's Open Source, a term they created, not a generic concept "open source." I don't like them owning a term that feels like it should be generic and communally defined, but it's not, and they do.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  Do they even claim to own the term? They are the Open Source Initiative, stewards of the Open Source Definition. The closest I see is a rule then when you're using the OSI trademark or logo you need to follow their definition of "Open Source".
  - kube-system 5y ago
    They don't claim to own it, because they legally do not have a right to it. They tried to register it and failed.
pie_flavor 5y ago
The OSI founders are (some of) the inventors of the term Open Source. It'd be like telling Ken Thompson he's wrong about what constitutes Unix Philosophy. Or, for that matter, the Free Software Foundation that they're wrong about what constitutes Free Software.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  > It'd be like telling Ken Thompson he's wrong about what constitutes Unix Philosophy. If his definition has shifted, it might be entirely correct to say he's wrong. You can also accept his general definition but validly disagree with how exactly to apply it. Inventing a term gives you a lot of authority but not total control over what it means.
- glind72 5y ago
  Maybe the original founders yes, but the board and the decisions they make on how it's governed now is not the same group. That's like saying the original authors of the constitution never meant for it to be a living and evolving document. I don't think they ever intended it to be the one and only definition of the term and licenses.

mkr-hn 5y ago

Think of this in terms of a brand defending their trademark to avoid losing it through dilution. It's Open Source, a term they created, not a generic concept "open source." I don't like them owning a term that feels like it should be generic and communally defined, but it's not, and they do.

Dylan16807 5y ago
Do they even claim to own the term? They are the Open Source Initiative, stewards of the Open Source Definition. The closest I see is a rule then when you're using the OSI trademark or logo you need to follow their definition of "Open Source".
- kube-system 5y ago
  They don't claim to own it, because they legally do not have a right to it. They tried to register it and failed.

pie_flavor 5y ago

The OSI founders are (some of) the inventors of the term Open Source. It'd be like telling Ken Thompson he's wrong about what constitutes Unix Philosophy. Or, for that matter, the Free Software Foundation that they're wrong about what constitutes Free Software.

Dylan16807 5y ago
> It'd be like telling Ken Thompson he's wrong about what constitutes Unix Philosophy. If his definition has shifted, it might be entirely correct to say he's wrong. You can also accept his general definition but validly disagree with how exactly to apply it. Inventing a term gives you a lot of authority but not total control over what it means.
glind72 5y ago
Maybe the original founders yes, but the board and the decisions they make on how it's governed now is not the same group. That's like saying the original authors of the constitution never meant for it to be a living and evolving document. I don't think they ever intended it to be the one and only definition of the term and licenses.