24 ms·

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 li

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".)
  - judge2020 4y ago
    Another comment claims the term was used way before in the 80’s to simply denote ‘source available’; the OSI was founded in the late 90’s.
stoolpigeon 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. " A particular kind, yes. The OSI definition? I'd want to see something that showed objectively that this is what people think. I saw some projects I support come under fire for not being open source recently- I've been. a user and supporter of FOSS software for a long time. I didn't realize that making exclusions on who can use your software wasn't open source. If a developer doesn't want their code used in a weapons system, it doesn't meet the OSI definition. I know it now, but then I think that leaves the software to use a term that's much less accurate. I don't think that happens because they have a profit motive and want to exploit the term open source. In fact I've seen licenses that are essentially open source except they try to stop people from making a bunch of money off of community work, including those currently controlling the project.
- seba_dos1 4y ago
  I spent half of my life around Open Source and Free Software. The only cases where people questioned the OSD definition of "Open Source" I've ever seen were either projects that wanted to benefit from the positive clout the term has gained over years without actually doing their part in return, or people who were clearly confused on what this term actually means (usually in relation to Free Software), tried to explain it to someone else and when pointed out they're wrong they didn't want to admit their mistake and went "but OSI can't dictate what this term means". Never seen it used differently in an actual, honest and informed way anywhere that matters. > I didn't realize that making exclusions on who can use your software wasn't open source. Really? How? Isn't that incredibly obvious? If my license says "this software can only be used by Jane Doe from Boston", is it FLOSS? Or even "only by people who pay me $2000 every month for using it"? After all, it's just a (large) exclusion on who can use my software. If a license tries to stop people from making money, it's clearly not "essentially open source" in its very nature. In its essence, "open source" means "everyone can use it, and no limitations can be placed other than this particular set of acceptable restrictions". How can you expect that placing additional arbitrary restrictions still gives you the right to call your thing "open source"?
  - 4y ago

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".)
- judge2020 4y ago
  Another comment claims the term was used way before in the 80’s to simply denote ‘source available’; the OSI was founded in the late 90’s.

stoolpigeon 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. " A particular kind, yes. The OSI definition? I'd want to see something that showed objectively that this is what people think. I saw some projects I support come under fire for not being open source recently- I've been. a user and supporter of FOSS software for a long time. I didn't realize that making exclusions on who can use your software wasn't open source. If a developer doesn't want their code used in a weapons system, it doesn't meet the OSI definition. I know it now, but then I think that leaves the software to use a term that's much less accurate. I don't think that happens because they have a profit motive and want to exploit the term open source. In fact I've seen licenses that are essentially open source except they try to stop people from making a bunch of money off of community work, including those currently controlling the project.

seba_dos1 4y ago
I spent half of my life around Open Source and Free Software. The only cases where people questioned the OSD definition of "Open Source" I've ever seen were either projects that wanted to benefit from the positive clout the term has gained over years without actually doing their part in return, or people who were clearly confused on what this term actually means (usually in relation to Free Software), tried to explain it to someone else and when pointed out they're wrong they didn't want to admit their mistake and went "but OSI can't dictate what this term means". Never seen it used differently in an actual, honest and informed way anywhere that matters. > I didn't realize that making exclusions on who can use your software wasn't open source. Really? How? Isn't that incredibly obvious? If my license says "this software can only be used by Jane Doe from Boston", is it FLOSS? Or even "only by people who pay me $2000 every month for using it"? After all, it's just a (large) exclusion on who can use my software. If a license tries to stop people from making money, it's clearly not "essentially open source" in its very nature. In its essence, "open source" means "everyone can use it, and no limitations can be placed other than this particular set of acceptable restrictions". How can you expect that placing additional arbitrary restrictions still gives you the right to call your thing "open source"?
- 4y ago