4 ms·

I'm pretty sure "Open source" is a legally protected phrase owned by OSI with a precise definition.

• folkrav 4y ago
  This is far from the first time I see this discussion. If anything, it makes me even more heavily dislike the confusion created by using the word "open", which already carries a definition, to describe this concept that's actually more than "open". Free or libre software at least means what it says.
  • usrn 4y ago
    Normal people get really confused by the word "free" to the degree that I think it might actually be worse than "open." Libre is really perfect but no one wants to call it that because it sounds silly.
    • folkrav 4y ago
      > Libre is really perfect but no one wants to call it that because it sounds silly. Maybe I'm biased cause the word exists in French, but I'm not sure how "libre" sounds silly. We really have to stop letting engineers name things...
  • MaxBarraclough 4y ago
    Right. At this point there's an established playbook: 1. Someone who doesn't understand open source claims that open source means source available 2. Someone who does understand open source points to the OSI definition and points out that availability of source is nowhere near enough 3. Bickering about legal matters as if trademark law is the best way to handle terminology 4. Accusations that it's essentially tyranny for the OSI and FSF to try to establish standard definitions for open source and free software, or for the rest of us to insist upon proper use of these terms Examples: • https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25367131 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25367131 • https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25834067 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25834067 • https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26079067 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26079067 • https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27267367 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27267367 • https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25364878 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25364878 • https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26017500 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26017500 • https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31084823 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31084823
• mindcrime 4y ago
  I'm pretty sure "Open source" is a legally protected phrase owned by OSI with a precise definition. It does have a precise definition (the OSD[1]), but OSI does not own the phrase in the sense of owning a (registered) trademark on it. They applied for such a trademark decades ago, but ultimately abandoned the application IIRC. That said, registered trademark or no, the OSD is by far and away the most widely accepted and used definition of what it means to be "open source". I'd argue that it is a de-facto standard, albeit not a de jure standard. [1]: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd