4 ms·

OSI has been trying really hard to claim the term for themselves in a dishonest way, even though they were not the ones that invented it. https://news.ycombinat

OSI has been trying really hard to claim the term for themselves in a dishonest way, even though they were not the ones that invented it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26507460 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26507460

bawolff 5y ago
That's not really convincing. Sure the term "open" and "source" have appeared in conjunction together previously, but it was rare for it to be used as a proper noun, instead of an adjective describing a noun, and even if it was, it was OSI that populized the term. Regardless of any historical context, in contemporary usage, "open source" has a commonly understand meaning and its what the OSI says it is. Other meanings make as much sense as pointing out that computers aren't machines, but a job title.
- Beltalowda 5y ago
  > "open source" has a commonly understand meaning and its what the OSI says it is I would contest this, based on the many discussions there have been on HN about this, as well as many people (including many "normal" software developers who are not deeply invested in open source) I've met and talked to over the years having only a vague notion of what "open source" is exactly (often being something along the lines of "you have access to the source code"). I'd be willing to bet a substantial amount of money that if you were to ask 1,000 random software developers about Open Source, the OSI, and the OSD over half of them won't be able to give you a coherent answer on what these things are exactly. This is the crux of the issue, really. Who did or did not invent the term isn't necessarily all that important: the thing is that in common understanding it doesn't really have the clear specific meaning in the minds of most, whereas for others – I would argue a minority – it has a very clear and very specific meaning, which inevitably leads to friction. I guess the point of "Open Source was used before the OSI came along" is to demonstrate that it's a term that has a kind-of "obvious" meaning, and has been coined independently of the OSI's coining more than once. People don't hear "Open Source" and then consult a precise definition, they hear "Open Source" and assume it means what it says on the tin. The same applies to "Free Software", a term with 15 years more effort to explain what it means exactly, with even more limited success. It seems to me that attempting to educate a landmass about a term with an "obvious meaning" is a futile effort; there have been many language pedantics over the years, and I don't know of a single attempt that has worked out. You're welcome to try as far as I'm concerned, but it seems to me that there are many more fruitful ways to spend time and effort.
  - yawaramin 5y ago
    I think it's first important to define what we're talking about, before talking about it. If a certain set of people have 'a very clear and very specific meaning' of what it is, and another set 'doesn't really have the clear specific meaning', then I think it's pretty obvious which definition we should go with.
    - Beltalowda 5y ago
      It's not obvious at all. There are many people who have all sorts of very specific ideas about language and how it ought to be used. They are usually ignored by everyone except themselves and people who agree with them already. I don't get why so many people are so obsessed with language. Over the last few decades terabytes of data has been used to discus this, and to what effect? I would actually argue it's been a net-negative since it has put many people off, and has been a distraction from far more pressing matters.
      - bawolff 5y ago
        If you're talking hacker vs cracker, linux vs GNU/linux, then sure, its mostly a waste of air. As far as "open source" goes, its in essence a brand of a cultural movement. And like real brands, some unscrupulous people want to enrich themselves off the brand by making a substandard product but pretending its the real thing. This is harmful to users who are swindled and it is harmful to open source devs whose reputation are stained by association. (To make the metaphor concrete, an example of a swindle would be someone makes open source software which isnt really, then sues all its users that use it in an open source fashion. This hurts the users, but also hurts people who make open source software because people cant trust the brand anymore)
        ttybird2 5y ago
        "And like real brands, some unscrupulous people want to enrich themselves off the brand by making a substandard product but pretending its the real thing" I am unsure if you mean the OSI people or the people who disagree with the OSI definition here.
Gigachad 5y ago
The OSI definition of open source matches what almost everyone thinks of open source. It's the most useful definition. The Stallman gang have wasted over a decade trying to redefine open source to weaker terms making it useless and insisting that everyone use "Free software" instead which is insane since the world does and always will think of free as in money.
- drdaeman 5y ago
  We all may have different opinions about Stallman, but one - I believe - undeniable thing is that he's an extreme purist/idealist, and he would ceaselessly fight for any cause he believes in. Even for a totally lost one. And here, "open source" is practical, but "free/libre software" captures the essence (which "open source" misses).
  - Gigachad 5y ago
    Open source as defined by the OSI which is what most people agree with, is exactly identical to what RMS calls free software. RMS wants open source to mean what most people call "source available". We have the terms source available and open source which are well understood and has no ambiguity but RMS and the FSF want to push their free software term and have to change open source so their term isn't obsolete. It's nothing to do with being a purist or ideal. Because the wider understanding is exactly as pure and ideal. They just aren't the words RMS wants us to use for those meanings. He is obsessive but not for any real gain.
    - User23 5y ago
      It has to do with the English meaning of words both generally and for software in particular. Free, as in freedom, is a much stronger word than open. This distinction is longstanding in the business. See for example the Open Group[1]. Those of us who can remember the past are well aware that the OSI specifically tried to co-opt the free software movement for commercial gain and specifically used the weasel term open to appeal to the suits without any of that pesky user freedom. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Group https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Group

bawolff 5y ago

That's not really convincing. Sure the term "open" and "source" have appeared in conjunction together previously, but it was rare for it to be used as a proper noun, instead of an adjective describing a noun, and even if it was, it was OSI that populized the term. Regardless of any historical context, in contemporary usage, "open source" has a commonly understand meaning and its what the OSI says it is. Other meanings make as much sense as pointing out that computers aren't machines, but a job title.

Beltalowda 5y ago
> "open source" has a commonly understand meaning and its what the OSI says it is I would contest this, based on the many discussions there have been on HN about this, as well as many people (including many "normal" software developers who are not deeply invested in open source) I've met and talked to over the years having only a vague notion of what "open source" is exactly (often being something along the lines of "you have access to the source code"). I'd be willing to bet a substantial amount of money that if you were to ask 1,000 random software developers about Open Source, the OSI, and the OSD over half of them won't be able to give you a coherent answer on what these things are exactly. This is the crux of the issue, really. Who did or did not invent the term isn't necessarily all that important: the thing is that in common understanding it doesn't really have the clear specific meaning in the minds of most, whereas for others – I would argue a minority – it has a very clear and very specific meaning, which inevitably leads to friction. I guess the point of "Open Source was used before the OSI came along" is to demonstrate that it's a term that has a kind-of "obvious" meaning, and has been coined independently of the OSI's coining more than once. People don't hear "Open Source" and then consult a precise definition, they hear "Open Source" and assume it means what it says on the tin. The same applies to "Free Software", a term with 15 years more effort to explain what it means exactly, with even more limited success. It seems to me that attempting to educate a landmass about a term with an "obvious meaning" is a futile effort; there have been many language pedantics over the years, and I don't know of a single attempt that has worked out. You're welcome to try as far as I'm concerned, but it seems to me that there are many more fruitful ways to spend time and effort.
- yawaramin 5y ago
  I think it's first important to define what we're talking about, before talking about it. If a certain set of people have 'a very clear and very specific meaning' of what it is, and another set 'doesn't really have the clear specific meaning', then I think it's pretty obvious which definition we should go with.
  - Beltalowda 5y ago
    It's not obvious at all. There are many people who have all sorts of very specific ideas about language and how it ought to be used. They are usually ignored by everyone except themselves and people who agree with them already. I don't get why so many people are so obsessed with language. Over the last few decades terabytes of data has been used to discus this, and to what effect? I would actually argue it's been a net-negative since it has put many people off, and has been a distraction from far more pressing matters.
    - bawolff 5y ago
      If you're talking hacker vs cracker, linux vs GNU/linux, then sure, its mostly a waste of air. As far as "open source" goes, its in essence a brand of a cultural movement. And like real brands, some unscrupulous people want to enrich themselves off the brand by making a substandard product but pretending its the real thing. This is harmful to users who are swindled and it is harmful to open source devs whose reputation are stained by association. (To make the metaphor concrete, an example of a swindle would be someone makes open source software which isnt really, then sues all its users that use it in an open source fashion. This hurts the users, but also hurts people who make open source software because people cant trust the brand anymore)
      - ttybird2 5y ago
        "And like real brands, some unscrupulous people want to enrich themselves off the brand by making a substandard product but pretending its the real thing" I am unsure if you mean the OSI people or the people who disagree with the OSI definition here.

Gigachad 5y ago

The OSI definition of open source matches what almost everyone thinks of open source. It's the most useful definition. The Stallman gang have wasted over a decade trying to redefine open source to weaker terms making it useless and insisting that everyone use "Free software" instead which is insane since the world does and always will think of free as in money.

drdaeman 5y ago
We all may have different opinions about Stallman, but one - I believe - undeniable thing is that he's an extreme purist/idealist, and he would ceaselessly fight for any cause he believes in. Even for a totally lost one. And here, "open source" is practical, but "free/libre software" captures the essence (which "open source" misses).
- Gigachad 5y ago
  Open source as defined by the OSI which is what most people agree with, is exactly identical to what RMS calls free software. RMS wants open source to mean what most people call "source available". We have the terms source available and open source which are well understood and has no ambiguity but RMS and the FSF want to push their free software term and have to change open source so their term isn't obsolete. It's nothing to do with being a purist or ideal. Because the wider understanding is exactly as pure and ideal. They just aren't the words RMS wants us to use for those meanings. He is obsessive but not for any real gain.
  - User23 5y ago
    It has to do with the English meaning of words both generally and for software in particular. Free, as in freedom, is a much stronger word than open. This distinction is longstanding in the business. See for example the Open Group[1]. Those of us who can remember the past are well aware that the OSI specifically tried to co-opt the free software movement for commercial gain and specifically used the weasel term open to appeal to the suits without any of that pesky user freedom. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Group https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Group