3 ms·

> "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 abo

> "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.
  - yawaramin 5y ago
    People are obsessed about it because on one side you have a bunch of people trying to redefine it to mean whatever set of obligations they feel like e.g. 'You open sourced it so now you're responsible for it' etc. etc. and on the other side you have people trying to hold the line and say 'No, that's not what open source means'. You're basically arguing to turn 'OSS' into a meaningless blob of text that anyone can interpret as they like.
bawolff 5y ago
> 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. How about if you pick 1000 random devs involved in licensing? I don't see that it matters what a random dev knows, so long as the group using the term knows and has a consistent definition. To put another way, how many people actually know the precise definition of the term "organic" (as used in grocery stores)? Probably not that many, at best they have a vauge notion, and the term has much wider used historical definition than open spurce does. I would still say its morally wrong for a company to use an alternative "definition" to attract customers to their product. It would be false advertising in exactly the same way misusing open source would be, regardless of what their customer base knows about the details.
- naniwaduni 5y ago
  Then you run into obvious and predictable problems at the interface between "devs involved in licensing" and "devs".

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.
- yawaramin 5y ago
  People are obsessed about it because on one side you have a bunch of people trying to redefine it to mean whatever set of obligations they feel like e.g. 'You open sourced it so now you're responsible for it' etc. etc. and on the other side you have people trying to hold the line and say 'No, that's not what open source means'. You're basically arguing to turn 'OSS' into a meaningless blob of text that anyone can interpret as they like.

bawolff 5y ago

> 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. How about if you pick 1000 random devs involved in licensing? I don't see that it matters what a random dev knows, so long as the group using the term knows and has a consistent definition. To put another way, how many people actually know the precise definition of the term "organic" (as used in grocery stores)? Probably not that many, at best they have a vauge notion, and the term has much wider used historical definition than open spurce does. I would still say its morally wrong for a company to use an alternative "definition" to attract customers to their product. It would be false advertising in exactly the same way misusing open source would be, regardless of what their customer base knows about the details.

naniwaduni 5y ago
Then you run into obvious and predictable problems at the interface between "devs involved in licensing" and "devs".