13 ms·

Why the term "open source" is important

54 points by longrod 4y ago

jrm4 4y ago
- ArrayBoundCheck 4y ago
  Whens his OS coming out? I'm stuck in August 25 1991 and it hasn't come out yet
MonkeyClub 4y ago
Must confess, I get a bit irritated when people try to explain "open source", but then very carefully steer away from "free software" in the explanation. It is like trying to explain what makes water flow, but trying very hard to avoid using "fluid" or its cognates. My irritation aside, though, I can't decide whether the author is passively ignorant of the rest of the iceberg, or actively chooses to ignore it.
- judge2020 4y ago
  I'll be honest, the use of 'free' in your comment is vague on the same level of 'open source', ie. do you mean "free (freedom) software" or "free (as in beer) software".
- mixologic 4y ago
  Its also noteworthy that the definition of "Open Source" is not something that any organization or entity has ownership over. OSI wants the definition to mean specific things. The FSF wants it to mean similar, yet different things (or that they never wanted "open source" to pollute the vernacular at all, and continue to use the "Free" software terminology.) But the definition itself is fluid, contextual, and subject to change over time.
  - bitwize 4y ago
    "Open source" was a service mark of OSI, an attempt to defend the term against people who use it inconsistently with its definition. I don't know if this is still the case, but OSI still advocates for use of "open source" consistent with the definition below. Both open source and free software are defined as software that allows you to: * use the software for any purpose * examine the source * distribute the software under the same license terms as you received it * modify the software in any way * distribute the software in modified form under the same license terms as you received the original Stallman's quibble with "open source" is that open source messaging focuses on the business benefits of this kind of software rather than the inherent virtues of free software (and the inherent vices of non-free software). Note also that even to Stallman and the FSF, even BSD- or MIT-licensed works are "free software"; software licenses that forbid redistribution under a different license are called copyleft licenses under the FSF.
  - MonkeyClub 4y ago
    Yeah I think the FSF sees significant differences between Free Software and Open Source, in terms of the essential liberties that are not present in Open Source (different things missing in different understandings, but the FSF focuses on the fact that they are missing). Although I’m no fanatical Stallmanite (Stallmanist? :), I do see the categorical distinctions clear as day; can’t understand why Open Source people play the willful ignorance card. Free Software is good for people primarily, while Open Source is good for corporations primarily. If people ignore FS and promote OS, what does that tell us about their intentions?
- edgyquant 4y ago
  For me F/LOSS is a perfect example of how anarchist philosophy let’s perfect be the enemy of good; practical solutions become as bad as no solution. Most end users are just happy there’s a ton of free, quality code to run and study. Admittedly that’s only the case because of the FSF, but I think they should just accept that “open source” is a perfectly good term to describe software that is free and you can download the source. Everything else is licensing nuances e.g, politics
  - Ar-Curunir 4y ago
    FLOSS is not an anarchist philosophy, since it relies on the state for enforcement.
    - edgyquant 4y ago
      The minds behind the FSF were very much influenced by anarchist philosophy. The implementation uses the state because anarchism isn’t practical. As I said, they’ve been convinced the movement has failed since it’s inception and that we live in the dystopia they envisioned. Despite their mission having been an overwhelming success.
  - jrm4 4y ago
    I think you have it exactly wrong. The idea of Free Software, at its most extreme, exists as a useful endpoint of an "Overton Window" for software. Which is to say, all software benefits from its existence even if they don't e.g. sign on to the GPL. You're forced to consider it as a possibility. Without it, we'd probably think of "Open Source" as the most "open" software can be -- which, as OP proves, is quite wrong and nebulous.
    - edgyquant 4y ago
      No I have it right, because most people stop listening when you talk about more abstract “freedom” when what they’ve got is literally (the good) and abstractly (the implementation) free. I get it’s an Overton window and admitted they moved it. However they’ve (FSF) failed to adapt to the current times and branch from there.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  Free software is associated with the belief that unfree software is unethical. If someone is making an explanation, but is not trying to tell everyone who makes propitiatory software is evil they should not mention free software.
  - mistrial9 4y ago
    I will try -- free is not the right word in English, it has ambiguity and also, unproductive aspects of meaning. Richard Stallman and GPL discussions certainly do mention ethics as part of the considerations. I agree that no person is completely disjoint from ethical considerations, with intelligence. But as this thread explores, there are multiple points of view, unclear and untested aspects legally within multiple legal jurisdictions. But you make a large leap when you say "they should not mention" .. It is a dramatic statement, not a logical one, it is more in common with persuasive, political speech than logic there. As noted by others, a useful simplification is to focus on one particular LICENSE at a time. Is this license ... x y z. As Google did long ago and as Github started to do and as the OSI does and as FSF does... like that.. not debate on the entire concept, but instead focus on the implementation, as software does.
    - charcircuit 4y ago
      >free is not the right word in English, it has ambiguity and also, unproductive aspects of meaning. I was not talking about free software as in the adjective free applied to software. But free software as in the term from the free software movement where its members call code that follows their ideals of what is ethical free software. >It is a dramatic statement, not a logical one The logical reason is that free software is less inclusive because it considers most SWE unethical for working on proprietary software. If the term open source works just as well and is more inclusive it should be used.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- skybrian 4y ago
  Yes, "free software" is a competing term used by Free Software Foundation, but they don't certify licenses in the same way. They have a page commenting on different licenses [1] but it's less useful than what OSI does, in terms of defining a term clearly and attempting to be neutral about what licenses it includes. Perhaps this is because their goal is to promote the GNU licenses, not to be objective about it. OSI was created in part in reaction to ambiguity and confusion around "free software." [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
- ssddanbrown 4y ago
  Article author here, I admit this is fairly specifically targeted at the term "Open Source" as that's specifically the term I believe to see misapplied most often. I wanted to write an article that I could share to provide some context when raising issues regarding licensing. While I could have gone a lot deeper into also describing "free software" and the history of the terms, I wanted something rather direct that won't serve more confusion (Since often this could be the first introduction to the meanings of "Open Source" and "free software"). Maybe I could add a "Further Reading" section at the end though with links to such topics.
TAForObvReasons 4y ago
As long as there is money to be made by blurring the line, people will continue to do it. But there is no consensus on what is "open source". Is AGPL open source? Despite the FSF and OSI approving AGPL, many would argue that it is a EULA. The inevitable result is the erosion of the generic branding "open source" and the rise of specific licenses. "MIT" or "Apache" or "BSD" evoke one set of reactions, while "GPL" or "MPL" evoke another.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jefftk 4y ago
  > there is no consensus on what is "open source" It's not "consensus" in the sense of "unanimity" (is anything ever, when it comes to widely used terms?) but there's a "consensus" in the sense of widespread agreement to use the OSI's definition. > Is AGPL open source? Yes. Why wouldn't it be? It meets all the standard requirements (https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd) and the OSI has approved it.
  - TAForObvReasons 4y ago
    Many have argued the AGPL is a EULA, not a proper software license. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31190064 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31190064 for example: > If I were to run a modified AGPL'd SSH server on my own hardware, the question of whether I'm violating the AGPL depends on whether I'm allowing others to access it remotely. If the AGPL can be violated without copyright infringement, it's clearly in a different legal category than the GPL. That "[AGPL] meets all the standard requirements" and "OSI has approved it" is really an indictment of OSI judgment, not a sound argument with basis in copyright law.
naniwaduni 4y ago
There's nothing magical or divinely inspired about the OSI open source definition; it's an elaboration on the DSFG. The DSFG has the hoops it does to facilitate the mental gymnastics of reconciling the appealing concept of free software with the ugly reality that the GPL was a poorly-implemented singleton that formed the bedrock of their enterprise.
TrevorFSmith 4y ago
No organization can strictly define "open source" except to say which definition they use. A more valid way to approach the issue is to point out that a license is or is not not approved by the OSI, the FSF, or some other person or group. "Open source" has always been and will always be as fuzzy a term as "the Metaverse" and "handsome".
- YmiYugy 4y ago
  For most developers and even a fair number of users open source isn't a fuzzy concept but a very concrete technical term describing a very particular kind of license. Being under an open source license can provide a huge boost to a project or product. As such it is a powerful marketing tool and companies try to exploit that by systematically undermining the the most widespread definition of open source. The danger of course being that we end up with a term as nebulous as Metaverse. I would even go further and argue that we should cement that definition into law, i.e. you can't call a product open source if it hasn't an approved open source license. The EU has created precedent for that by protecting the names of certain foods and beverages with regard to their origin, manufacturing and characteristics, because it's an area that faces many of the same issues.
  - TrevorFSmith 4y ago
    I am aware of the history of the term and how it was taken up and popularized by the OSI. It has served an important and useful purpose. That said, they can't camp on a general purpose term. It isn't like "Champagne", which is a region with ~clear boundaries.
    - MereInterest 4y ago
      It wasn't a general purpose term when it was coined. That only occurred later, as companies jumped on the bandwagon while not actually permitting the user freedoms that are goal of open source software. (There's a side argument of whether "Champagne" should be a protected term. The physical region has clear boundaries, but that doesn't mean that the beverage should be defined in terms of the region. If I am opening a combination diner/antique shop, I may advertise it as "Hamburgers and China", even if I am neither near Hamburg nor China. I do not need to follow the lead on calling champagne "sparkling wine" and name my ill-conceived business venture "Ground Beef Patties and Exquisite Ceramics".)
longrod 4y ago
The author posted this in a recent discussion on GitHub [0]. Thought I'd share it to get more opinions on the matter. Personally speaking it irks me a little when different terms are made ownership by someone. OSI is doing great work but is it considered an authority when it comes to defining what open source is? In other words, can open source exist without OSI? I certainly think so. For example, what does it mean when Sentry says their licensing scheme is not acceptable by OSI [1]? Does it change the meaning of open source? It's really confusing. [0] https://github.com/streetwriters/notesnook/discussions/747#discussioncomment-3292359 https://github.com/streetwriters/notesnook/discussions/747#d... [1] https://open.sentry.io/licensing/ https://open.sentry.io/licensing/
- mistrial9 4y ago
  you answered your own question -- OSI activity exists exactly to publicize LICENSE and reduce confusion.
- skybrian 4y ago
  Yes, OSI is considered the authority on this. Who else? They invented and popularized the term, after all, back in the early dot-com era. Of course, they can't do it alone. The question is whether you should support OSI's efforts or not. Do you want "open source" to have a clear meaning or do you want to drift into meaningless like "agile" or just "open?" It's the same as any other standard. If everyone stops following the standard then it will fail, but is that really want you want?
  - TrevorFSmith 4y ago
    An additional question might be, "Do we want to allow a tiny group of people to declare that they, and only they, can pick a generic term like open source and then dictate that their definition is the only definition?" This is not "Kleenex" or "Champagne". This is a generic term.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      Open Source isn't a generic term, it's a weird term. The only reason it seems generic or natural to say is because of the OSI, which makes it more like Kleenex than champagne is like Kleenex.
hardwaresofton 4y ago
A bit of context for HNers before/after reading -- This is from the personal blog of the creator of Bookstack[0], which is licensed under MIT. I agree with the post and also other posters here that in that the post skips over the free/open software debate which is also quite relevant. [0]: https://github.com/BookStackApp/BookStack https://github.com/BookStackApp/BookStack
- ssddanbrown 4y ago
  Author here. Thanks for adding some context, I touch on the lack of of mention of "free software" in my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32301331 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32301331
  - hardwaresofton 4y ago
    No worries, love your work on Bookstack - it's awesome, and shows your commitment to open source.
    - ssddanbrown 4y ago
      That's lovely to hear, thank you very much!
sys_64738 4y ago
Open source is all about the license. The code can all be available for anybody to look at but there might be a restrictive license preventing you from compiling it. A senior exec at my former company once said "Open source doesn't mean it's free".
- TAForObvReasons 4y ago
  "Open source doesn't mean it's free" is typically used to refer to implementation and support costs compared to commercial solutions, not to licensing shenanigans within self-styled open source projects.
  - dahart 4y ago
    Parent’s point is a good one: the specific terms of OSI’s definition of open source does hinge on licensing. Furthermore, “open source” is not mutually exclusive with “commercial” software like you imply. The US government specifically refers to OSI-style open source software as “commercial” precisely because of the licensing that comes with it. https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-2#FAR_2_101 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-2#FAR_2_101
- Gigachad 4y ago
  Open source software can not restrict you from compiling it. You may have to pay to see it but then you are free to redistribute it. What you are talking about is source available software.
dblock 4y ago
As someone who works on an open-source fork of the open-source software mentioned in the post, I am now exclusively referring to the open-source version of it as Apache (APLv2) -licensed. Maybe that's how we fix this confusion?
greyface- 4y ago
The term "Open Source" is not a trademark and the USPTO will not allow it to become a trademark. The OSI themselves acknowledge this. https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...
dahart 4y ago
Maybe it would be better to promote and rally around a term that’s more specific? The best terms are the ones that naturally lead someone to the right conclusion, and are hard to make incorrect assumptions about. The main problem with trying to gate keep a generic term like “open source” is that it legitimately has multiple meanings, and the obvious and literal interpretation is the very one the author is complaining about. This is going to forever remain a fight against the tide, or a pee into the wind, or any number of other colorful well known phrases. It doesn’t take anything away from OSI to acknowledge their great work and also refer to OSI’s definition of open source specifically, when that is the one you mean.
- coconut08 4y ago
  this might make sense if you were talking about free software. free software is very unclear and it makes people believe things that are not true about the software. free software doesn't need to be 0 cost. this is not the case with open source. for close to 2 decades it was very obvious what open source meant and there was no confusion about it. it wasn't until the source available movement started to take off and they started to cash in on open source's reputation and identity for the sake of promoting themselves and cheapening the meaning that it became confusing. the problem is that since this is a cultural movement and not a piece of intellectual property like a trademark there is no way to prevent people from contorting open source into whatever best suits their self serving interests.
  - dahart 4y ago
    It makes sense with “open source” too, and the author already acknowledged that explicitly. I don’t think this point is even up for debate. The obvious & literal interpretation of the term is, is the source available to inspect? That is precisely what the author said is not the definition of “open source”, he wants the definition to come with more than that, specifically that “open source” needs to come with limitations on what you’re allowed to do with it once acquired; the argument is that it must not be public domain. I think it’s hyperbolic of you to suggest that when people use “open source” to mean “source that is open”, that implies they’re being selfish or contorting anything. You’re failing to acknowledge the very real problem that “open source” taken literally doesn’t mean what some people want it to mean.
raggi 4y ago
I have always had to treat different licenses differently. BSD, MIT, LGPL, GPL, AGPL, Apache, etc. They all mean different things which have impact on how and where I might place them. Subdividing "source available" as implied but not well defined in this article, into its own group does not substantially help me. When someone describes a useful "open source" thing to me, one of my first questions is which license it is under, and that would be the same whether someone said "source available" or "open source". Perhaps there's something more behind "punch in the gut", but I don't really know what that is. There's a link to a tweet about these projects being boosted under the open source term, but the tweet has little engagement: 20 project logos, 43 likes. Did it actually reach beyond direct customers? Did the term open source have any impact at all here?
- zozbot234 4y ago
  Source-available has been called "Shared Source" as far back as the early 2000s. Open Source was specifically intended to include the usual "freedoms" of free software, using a less ambiguous term than "Free".
  - raggi 4y ago
    https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Shared%20Source,source%20available,free%20software,shareware,open%20source https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Shared%2... often depends who you ask, istr stallmans take on "open source" is that the term came into existence explicitly to dilute the free software movement and make space for evil companies to do evil things. if you were to buy this then it may continue from that logic that everything covered in the article is well labelled open source. i don't really condone stallmans biased and divisive position on this, but it is exemplary of the kind of conversation we're wading into with opinions about what it means historically. e.g. https://www.cmpod.net/all-transcripts/history-open-source-free-software-text https://www.cmpod.net/all-transcripts/history-open-source-fr... under "A Surreal Situation"
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      > the term came into existence explicitly to dilute the free software movement and make space for evil companies to do evil things. It did. That has nothing to do with whether Open Source Software refers to software that uses an OSI approved license. It's the people trying to cloud a technical term with a dictionary meaning in order to be parasitic on FOSS without being FOSS who are being divisive, not people using the terms normally. Stallman isn't doing that. > if you were to buy this then it may continue from that logic that everything covered in the article is well labelled open source. I mean, this is just nonsense. Stallman says Open Source is bad, therefore everything bad is Open Source?
ddevault 4y ago
Thanks for writing this up, Dan. Whenever this discussion is rolled out again, it's useful to address a few key points. First, open source is defined by the open source definition. This is not contingent on the OSI receiving a trademark for the term. The common usage of the term is defined by the OSD, and much in the same way that selling "cakes" and fulfilling orders with used car tires is dishonest, so too is pushing non-free software under the brand of open source. And note that open source is defined by the OSD -- not by the OSI. Should the OSI attempt to re-define "open source" without careful consultation with the community or in service of a conflict of interest, the community will withdraw its support for the new definition. Painting the term as having always been loosely defined is historical revisionism. What we have always seen, and what we are seeing now, is a minority view that seeks to forward an unorthodox definition of open source in the service of their private financial interests. I am not prepared to accept a novel interpretation of open source because you feel that it would be more profitable for your business if I did. The open source brand has been wildly successful and it's a lucrative target for bad actors to exploit with non-conformant software licenses. Don't be a sucker. These interpretations are not in your best interest.
- ssddanbrown 4y ago
  Thanks for your input here Drew, your actions and writings have been what has inspired me to call out such scenarios (Of non-OSD "Open Source" usage) when I see them.
  - ddevault 4y ago
    Cheers :)

54 points by longrod 4y ago

jrm4 4y ago

ArrayBoundCheck 4y ago
Whens his OS coming out? I'm stuck in August 25 1991 and it hasn't come out yet

Must confess, I get a bit irritated when people try to explain "open source", but then very carefully steer away from "free software" in the explanation. It is like trying to explain what makes water flow, but trying very hard to avoid using "fluid" or its cognates. My irritation aside, though, I can't decide whether the author is passively ignorant of the rest of the iceberg, or actively chooses to ignore it.

judge2020 4y ago
I'll be honest, the use of 'free' in your comment is vague on the same level of 'open source', ie. do you mean "free (freedom) software" or "free (as in beer) software".
mixologic 4y ago
Its also noteworthy that the definition of "Open Source" is not something that any organization or entity has ownership over. OSI wants the definition to mean specific things. The FSF wants it to mean similar, yet different things (or that they never wanted "open source" to pollute the vernacular at all, and continue to use the "Free" software terminology.) But the definition itself is fluid, contextual, and subject to change over time.
- bitwize 4y ago
  "Open source" was a service mark of OSI, an attempt to defend the term against people who use it inconsistently with its definition. I don't know if this is still the case, but OSI still advocates for use of "open source" consistent with the definition below. Both open source and free software are defined as software that allows you to: * use the software for any purpose * examine the source * distribute the software under the same license terms as you received it * modify the software in any way * distribute the software in modified form under the same license terms as you received the original Stallman's quibble with "open source" is that open source messaging focuses on the business benefits of this kind of software rather than the inherent virtues of free software (and the inherent vices of non-free software). Note also that even to Stallman and the FSF, even BSD- or MIT-licensed works are "free software"; software licenses that forbid redistribution under a different license are called copyleft licenses under the FSF.
- MonkeyClub 4y ago
  Yeah I think the FSF sees significant differences between Free Software and Open Source, in terms of the essential liberties that are not present in Open Source (different things missing in different understandings, but the FSF focuses on the fact that they are missing). Although I’m no fanatical Stallmanite (Stallmanist? :), I do see the categorical distinctions clear as day; can’t understand why Open Source people play the willful ignorance card. Free Software is good for people primarily, while Open Source is good for corporations primarily. If people ignore FS and promote OS, what does that tell us about their intentions?
edgyquant 4y ago
For me F/LOSS is a perfect example of how anarchist philosophy let’s perfect be the enemy of good; practical solutions become as bad as no solution. Most end users are just happy there’s a ton of free, quality code to run and study. Admittedly that’s only the case because of the FSF, but I think they should just accept that “open source” is a perfectly good term to describe software that is free and you can download the source. Everything else is licensing nuances e.g, politics
- Ar-Curunir 4y ago
  FLOSS is not an anarchist philosophy, since it relies on the state for enforcement.
  - edgyquant 4y ago
    The minds behind the FSF were very much influenced by anarchist philosophy. The implementation uses the state because anarchism isn’t practical. As I said, they’ve been convinced the movement has failed since it’s inception and that we live in the dystopia they envisioned. Despite their mission having been an overwhelming success.
- jrm4 4y ago
  I think you have it exactly wrong. The idea of Free Software, at its most extreme, exists as a useful endpoint of an "Overton Window" for software. Which is to say, all software benefits from its existence even if they don't e.g. sign on to the GPL. You're forced to consider it as a possibility. Without it, we'd probably think of "Open Source" as the most "open" software can be -- which, as OP proves, is quite wrong and nebulous.
  - edgyquant 4y ago
    No I have it right, because most people stop listening when you talk about more abstract “freedom” when what they’ve got is literally (the good) and abstractly (the implementation) free. I get it’s an Overton window and admitted they moved it. However they’ve (FSF) failed to adapt to the current times and branch from there.
charcircuit 4y ago
Free software is associated with the belief that unfree software is unethical. If someone is making an explanation, but is not trying to tell everyone who makes propitiatory software is evil they should not mention free software.
- mistrial9 4y ago
  I will try -- free is not the right word in English, it has ambiguity and also, unproductive aspects of meaning. Richard Stallman and GPL discussions certainly do mention ethics as part of the considerations. I agree that no person is completely disjoint from ethical considerations, with intelligence. But as this thread explores, there are multiple points of view, unclear and untested aspects legally within multiple legal jurisdictions. But you make a large leap when you say "they should not mention" .. It is a dramatic statement, not a logical one, it is more in common with persuasive, political speech than logic there. As noted by others, a useful simplification is to focus on one particular LICENSE at a time. Is this license ... x y z. As Google did long ago and as Github started to do and as the OSI does and as FSF does... like that.. not debate on the entire concept, but instead focus on the implementation, as software does.
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    >free is not the right word in English, it has ambiguity and also, unproductive aspects of meaning. I was not talking about free software as in the adjective free applied to software. But free software as in the term from the free software movement where its members call code that follows their ideals of what is ethical free software. >It is a dramatic statement, not a logical one The logical reason is that free software is less inclusive because it considers most SWE unethical for working on proprietary software. If the term open source works just as well and is more inclusive it should be used.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
skybrian 4y ago
Yes, "free software" is a competing term used by Free Software Foundation, but they don't certify licenses in the same way. They have a page commenting on different licenses [1] but it's less useful than what OSI does, in terms of defining a term clearly and attempting to be neutral about what licenses it includes. Perhaps this is because their goal is to promote the GNU licenses, not to be objective about it. OSI was created in part in reaction to ambiguity and confusion around "free software." [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
ssddanbrown 4y ago
Article author here, I admit this is fairly specifically targeted at the term "Open Source" as that's specifically the term I believe to see misapplied most often. I wanted to write an article that I could share to provide some context when raising issues regarding licensing. While I could have gone a lot deeper into also describing "free software" and the history of the terms, I wanted something rather direct that won't serve more confusion (Since often this could be the first introduction to the meanings of "Open Source" and "free software"). Maybe I could add a "Further Reading" section at the end though with links to such topics.

TAForObvReasons 4y ago

As long as there is money to be made by blurring the line, people will continue to do it. But there is no consensus on what is "open source". Is AGPL open source? Despite the FSF and OSI approving AGPL, many would argue that it is a EULA. The inevitable result is the erosion of the generic branding "open source" and the rise of specific licenses. "MIT" or "Apache" or "BSD" evoke one set of reactions, while "GPL" or "MPL" evoke another.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jefftk 4y ago
> there is no consensus on what is "open source" It's not "consensus" in the sense of "unanimity" (is anything ever, when it comes to widely used terms?) but there's a "consensus" in the sense of widespread agreement to use the OSI's definition. > Is AGPL open source? Yes. Why wouldn't it be? It meets all the standard requirements (https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd) and the OSI has approved it.
- TAForObvReasons 4y ago
  Many have argued the AGPL is a EULA, not a proper software license. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31190064 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31190064 for example: > If I were to run a modified AGPL'd SSH server on my own hardware, the question of whether I'm violating the AGPL depends on whether I'm allowing others to access it remotely. If the AGPL can be violated without copyright infringement, it's clearly in a different legal category than the GPL. That "[AGPL] meets all the standard requirements" and "OSI has approved it" is really an indictment of OSI judgment, not a sound argument with basis in copyright law.

naniwaduni 4y ago

There's nothing magical or divinely inspired about the OSI open source definition; it's an elaboration on the DSFG. The DSFG has the hoops it does to facilitate the mental gymnastics of reconciling the appealing concept of free software with the ugly reality that the GPL was a poorly-implemented singleton that formed the bedrock of their enterprise.

TrevorFSmith 4y ago

No organization can strictly define "open source" except to say which definition they use. A more valid way to approach the issue is to point out that a license is or is not not approved by the OSI, the FSF, or some other person or group. "Open source" has always been and will always be as fuzzy a term as "the Metaverse" and "handsome".

YmiYugy 4y ago
For most developers and even a fair number of users open source isn't a fuzzy concept but a very concrete technical term describing a very particular kind of license. Being under an open source license can provide a huge boost to a project or product. As such it is a powerful marketing tool and companies try to exploit that by systematically undermining the the most widespread definition of open source. The danger of course being that we end up with a term as nebulous as Metaverse. I would even go further and argue that we should cement that definition into law, i.e. you can't call a product open source if it hasn't an approved open source license. The EU has created precedent for that by protecting the names of certain foods and beverages with regard to their origin, manufacturing and characteristics, because it's an area that faces many of the same issues.
- TrevorFSmith 4y ago
  I am aware of the history of the term and how it was taken up and popularized by the OSI. It has served an important and useful purpose. That said, they can't camp on a general purpose term. It isn't like "Champagne", which is a region with ~clear boundaries.
  - MereInterest 4y ago
    It wasn't a general purpose term when it was coined. That only occurred later, as companies jumped on the bandwagon while not actually permitting the user freedoms that are goal of open source software. (There's a side argument of whether "Champagne" should be a protected term. The physical region has clear boundaries, but that doesn't mean that the beverage should be defined in terms of the region. If I am opening a combination diner/antique shop, I may advertise it as "Hamburgers and China", even if I am neither near Hamburg nor China. I do not need to follow the lead on calling champagne "sparkling wine" and name my ill-conceived business venture "Ground Beef Patties and Exquisite Ceramics".)

longrod 4y ago

The author posted this in a recent discussion on GitHub [0]. Thought I'd share it to get more opinions on the matter. Personally speaking it irks me a little when different terms are made ownership by someone. OSI is doing great work but is it considered an authority when it comes to defining what open source is? In other words, can open source exist without OSI? I certainly think so. For example, what does it mean when Sentry says their licensing scheme is not acceptable by OSI [1]? Does it change the meaning of open source? It's really confusing. [0] https://github.com/streetwriters/notesnook/discussions/747#discussioncomment-3292359 https://github.com/streetwriters/notesnook/discussions/747#d... [1] https://open.sentry.io/licensing/ https://open.sentry.io/licensing/

mistrial9 4y ago
you answered your own question -- OSI activity exists exactly to publicize LICENSE and reduce confusion.
skybrian 4y ago
Yes, OSI is considered the authority on this. Who else? They invented and popularized the term, after all, back in the early dot-com era. Of course, they can't do it alone. The question is whether you should support OSI's efforts or not. Do you want "open source" to have a clear meaning or do you want to drift into meaningless like "agile" or just "open?" It's the same as any other standard. If everyone stops following the standard then it will fail, but is that really want you want?
- TrevorFSmith 4y ago
  An additional question might be, "Do we want to allow a tiny group of people to declare that they, and only they, can pick a generic term like open source and then dictate that their definition is the only definition?" This is not "Kleenex" or "Champagne". This is a generic term.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    Open Source isn't a generic term, it's a weird term. The only reason it seems generic or natural to say is because of the OSI, which makes it more like Kleenex than champagne is like Kleenex.

hardwaresofton 4y ago

A bit of context for HNers before/after reading -- This is from the personal blog of the creator of Bookstack[0], which is licensed under MIT. I agree with the post and also other posters here that in that the post skips over the free/open software debate which is also quite relevant. [0]: https://github.com/BookStackApp/BookStack https://github.com/BookStackApp/BookStack

ssddanbrown 4y ago
Author here. Thanks for adding some context, I touch on the lack of of mention of "free software" in my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32301331 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32301331
- hardwaresofton 4y ago
  No worries, love your work on Bookstack - it's awesome, and shows your commitment to open source.
  - ssddanbrown 4y ago
    That's lovely to hear, thank you very much!

sys_64738 4y ago

Open source is all about the license. The code can all be available for anybody to look at but there might be a restrictive license preventing you from compiling it. A senior exec at my former company once said "Open source doesn't mean it's free".

TAForObvReasons 4y ago
"Open source doesn't mean it's free" is typically used to refer to implementation and support costs compared to commercial solutions, not to licensing shenanigans within self-styled open source projects.
- dahart 4y ago
  Parent’s point is a good one: the specific terms of OSI’s definition of open source does hinge on licensing. Furthermore, “open source” is not mutually exclusive with “commercial” software like you imply. The US government specifically refers to OSI-style open source software as “commercial” precisely because of the licensing that comes with it. https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-2#FAR_2_101 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-2#FAR_2_101
Gigachad 4y ago
Open source software can not restrict you from compiling it. You may have to pay to see it but then you are free to redistribute it. What you are talking about is source available software.

dblock 4y ago

As someone who works on an open-source fork of the open-source software mentioned in the post, I am now exclusively referring to the open-source version of it as Apache (APLv2) -licensed. Maybe that's how we fix this confusion?

greyface- 4y ago

The term "Open Source" is not a trademark and the USPTO will not allow it to become a trademark. The OSI themselves acknowledge this. https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...

dahart 4y ago

Maybe it would be better to promote and rally around a term that’s more specific? The best terms are the ones that naturally lead someone to the right conclusion, and are hard to make incorrect assumptions about. The main problem with trying to gate keep a generic term like “open source” is that it legitimately has multiple meanings, and the obvious and literal interpretation is the very one the author is complaining about. This is going to forever remain a fight against the tide, or a pee into the wind, or any number of other colorful well known phrases. It doesn’t take anything away from OSI to acknowledge their great work and also refer to OSI’s definition of open source specifically, when that is the one you mean.

coconut08 4y ago
this might make sense if you were talking about free software. free software is very unclear and it makes people believe things that are not true about the software. free software doesn't need to be 0 cost. this is not the case with open source. for close to 2 decades it was very obvious what open source meant and there was no confusion about it. it wasn't until the source available movement started to take off and they started to cash in on open source's reputation and identity for the sake of promoting themselves and cheapening the meaning that it became confusing. the problem is that since this is a cultural movement and not a piece of intellectual property like a trademark there is no way to prevent people from contorting open source into whatever best suits their self serving interests.
- dahart 4y ago
  It makes sense with “open source” too, and the author already acknowledged that explicitly. I don’t think this point is even up for debate. The obvious & literal interpretation of the term is, is the source available to inspect? That is precisely what the author said is not the definition of “open source”, he wants the definition to come with more than that, specifically that “open source” needs to come with limitations on what you’re allowed to do with it once acquired; the argument is that it must not be public domain. I think it’s hyperbolic of you to suggest that when people use “open source” to mean “source that is open”, that implies they’re being selfish or contorting anything. You’re failing to acknowledge the very real problem that “open source” taken literally doesn’t mean what some people want it to mean.

raggi 4y ago

I have always had to treat different licenses differently. BSD, MIT, LGPL, GPL, AGPL, Apache, etc. They all mean different things which have impact on how and where I might place them. Subdividing "source available" as implied but not well defined in this article, into its own group does not substantially help me. When someone describes a useful "open source" thing to me, one of my first questions is which license it is under, and that would be the same whether someone said "source available" or "open source". Perhaps there's something more behind "punch in the gut", but I don't really know what that is. There's a link to a tweet about these projects being boosted under the open source term, but the tweet has little engagement: 20 project logos, 43 likes. Did it actually reach beyond direct customers? Did the term open source have any impact at all here?

zozbot234 4y ago
Source-available has been called "Shared Source" as far back as the early 2000s. Open Source was specifically intended to include the usual "freedoms" of free software, using a less ambiguous term than "Free".
- raggi 4y ago
  https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Shared%20Source,source%20available,free%20software,shareware,open%20source https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Shared%2... often depends who you ask, istr stallmans take on "open source" is that the term came into existence explicitly to dilute the free software movement and make space for evil companies to do evil things. if you were to buy this then it may continue from that logic that everything covered in the article is well labelled open source. i don't really condone stallmans biased and divisive position on this, but it is exemplary of the kind of conversation we're wading into with opinions about what it means historically. e.g. https://www.cmpod.net/all-transcripts/history-open-source-free-software-text https://www.cmpod.net/all-transcripts/history-open-source-fr... under "A Surreal Situation"
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    > the term came into existence explicitly to dilute the free software movement and make space for evil companies to do evil things. It did. That has nothing to do with whether Open Source Software refers to software that uses an OSI approved license. It's the people trying to cloud a technical term with a dictionary meaning in order to be parasitic on FOSS without being FOSS who are being divisive, not people using the terms normally. Stallman isn't doing that. > if you were to buy this then it may continue from that logic that everything covered in the article is well labelled open source. I mean, this is just nonsense. Stallman says Open Source is bad, therefore everything bad is Open Source?

ddevault 4y ago

Thanks for writing this up, Dan. Whenever this discussion is rolled out again, it's useful to address a few key points. First, open source is defined by the open source definition. This is not contingent on the OSI receiving a trademark for the term. The common usage of the term is defined by the OSD, and much in the same way that selling "cakes" and fulfilling orders with used car tires is dishonest, so too is pushing non-free software under the brand of open source. And note that open source is defined by the OSD -- not by the OSI. Should the OSI attempt to re-define "open source" without careful consultation with the community or in service of a conflict of interest, the community will withdraw its support for the new definition. Painting the term as having always been loosely defined is historical revisionism. What we have always seen, and what we are seeing now, is a minority view that seeks to forward an unorthodox definition of open source in the service of their private financial interests. I am not prepared to accept a novel interpretation of open source because you feel that it would be more profitable for your business if I did. The open source brand has been wildly successful and it's a lucrative target for bad actors to exploit with non-conformant software licenses. Don't be a sucker. These interpretations are not in your best interest.

ssddanbrown 4y ago
Thanks for your input here Drew, your actions and writings have been what has inspired me to call out such scenarios (Of non-OSD "Open Source" usage) when I see them.
- ddevault 4y ago
  Cheers :)