4 ms·

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 conclusio

by 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.
  - ssddanbrown 4y ago
    I do see some differences between "free software" and "open source" here, Specifically that "free software" is much more common and something that could be expected to be written naturally, without understanding this space. "open source" is not so common as part of natural language, and its main use has been around the realm of software and licensing.
    - dahart 4y ago
      IMO “free software” is misunderstood in exactly the same way “open source” is misunderstood, at least in the way you mean. Both terms are not good at getting the important point across in the title, because the words people want associated with the title aren’t actually in the title. This will forever be a problem as long as the title requires explanation (which it unquestionably does) and as long as software is a growing field and new people keep joining. I don’t know why the idea to say what you mean would get push back, we can’t expect people to interpret the phrase “open source” to mean more than what those two words imply. We can, and should, IMO, come up with a phrase that has words that imply the important bits. Following the CC model, maybe something like “derivation allowed” and “no discrimination”.
      - pessimizer 4y ago
        Both terms are fine, long used and well-established. Free Software and Open Source software have complicated enough meanings that they need a sentence, not a phrase to explain; the phrase is just a label. And any software practitioner who doesn't know what people mean by Free or Open Source software isn't very good. If I start calling my OS "Windows" people might get upset even though windows predate MS by millennia.
  - seba_dos1 4y ago
    > 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. Uhm, no? That's the opposite of what the article actually says. Public Domain code is Open Source without any doubt, period. There is however a set of acceptable limitations that you can place on your code and still call it Open Source - mostly related to attribution or keeping derived works under the same terms. If you place other limitations on what others are allowed to do with your code once acquired, it's not Open Source regardless of whether they can see the source code or not. Which makes perfect sense to me - I can easily see the source code of Windows 2000, but that doesn't make it open.
ssddanbrown 4y ago
Article author here. My concern would be that you could use any term but, as soon as that term gains value, it would start to be abused and blurred and we'd be in the same situation. It would be a shame to effectively throw away the value of "Open Source" that has been built up by the OSI and the community around Open Source software. I don't think the term is past being useful, the vast majority of its use i still see it applied as per the OSI definition, but there's always going to be a little maintenance needed.
- dahart 4y ago
  “OSI open source” would not have the problem you speculate on. I’m sure there are other alternatives that could also work to solve this problem. At this point, the counter problem is growing: the legitimate alternative meanings of the term “open source” are getting more used as time goes, not less, and speaking personally I don’t think maintenance or blog posts is going to fix it. Creative Commons licenses got pretty good at this by adding more words to each variant of their license titles. What about that? There’s an inherent problem with hoping to keep a term as short and generic as “open source”, when the issues you care about are separate from whether you’re allowed to look at the source.
  - coconut08 4y ago
    the reason that creative commons isn't confusing and hasn't been co-opted isn't because it makes so much more sense. the reason that it's maintained it's meaning and can't be co-opted is because it is trademarked. if you make something that isn't creative commons but say that it is you can get sued. if you make something that isn't open source and say that it is you cant.
    - dahart 4y ago
      That’s a great reason to pick a different term, since “open source” can’t be trademarked. Something with “OSI” in the name probably could… BTW, I don’t think you can reasonably argue that “attribution non-commercial share-alike” is not more specific and not a better summary of the license conditions than the generic term “open source”. Trademark is a good point, however I think you’re wrong to say that better license titles is not part of why CC licenses are less confusing to a broad range of people.
thayne 4y ago
You are asking a large group of people to start using a different term, because a minority want a term that has had specific meaning for decades to have a more broad definition.
- dahart 4y ago
  Oh I think you have it completely backwards. The number of people who understand “open source” to mean OSI’s specific version is a tiny, tiny fraction of the number of people who assume “open source” means nothing more than what those two words clearly express: source available. This includes all new programmers (who outnumber us experienced programmers at all times), all lawmakers and law enforcement, all journalism, all business people, and the general public. I’m only offering ideas on how to solve an existing problem of unclear words and unreasonable expectations, not asking anyone to do anything. We can continue to use “open source”, and suffer the consequences and continue to complain. I think the problem the author called out will continue to get worse. Plus, as pointed out elsewhere in this thread, OSI co-opted this term from others who had already been using it differently before them. It would be way better if the term was clearly a name, rather than something that tries to gate-keep the meaning of general words. That would make it so you assume you need to look it up, and not assume what it means. It would be better if “open source” didn’t have other, easier to assume and understand meanings that came both before and after OSI’s ideas. If we don’t want to use a name, then it would be better if the phrase used a word or two to capture the ideas in OSI’s version. Using “open source” to mean something with restriction is a desire to have your cake and eat it too. This is in essence a marketing slogan that wants to rest multiple license limitations on the positive-sounding word “open”, without having to admit there are parts of the license that limit some kinds of openness and freedom in certain ways (under the possibly true belief that such limitations are the maximum balance of openness for everyone). Both term “open source” and “free software” suffer from this problem, hoping to establish a slogan out of two words that most clearly imply a meaning that is unfortunately antithetical to the movement. This is just a choice, and we could choose to be clear, or choose to fight the tide.
  - thayne 4y ago
    > “open source” means nothing more than what those two words clearly express: source available Perhaps it is my long experience with OSS, but to me "open" expresses freedom to use and modify not just to peruse. Some source available licenses are in more of a gray area here. But I've also seen companies claim that they are open source just because their code is on GitHub, even though their license doesn't allow you to do anything with that source code. > all lawmakers and law enforcement, all journalism, all business people, and the general public. Most of these people have no idea what source code is, so open source means nothing to them, unless someone explains it to them. > It would be way better if the term was clearly a name, rather than something that tries to gate-keep the meaning of general words I don't disagree with you, but the term "open source" is already widely used (moreso I think than "free software" which IMO is even worse given the ambiguity of the word free in English). And I would argue that it is a term of art in the software industry. It isn't the only case where general words are used for specific meanings in our industry, by far. Coming up with a new term would require a lot of effort to teach everyone already familiar with open source a new term, rewriting a lot of literature about OSS, and probably some rebranding. And then, even if the new term does catch on, as others have mentioned, companies will probably still use the new term to incorrectly refer to things that don't meet the definition, for the same reasons they do now. Would it be better to have a more specific name, maybe something that could be trademarked? Probably. Is it worth changing the term at this point? Probably not.

by dahart 4y ago

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.
- ssddanbrown 4y ago
  I do see some differences between "free software" and "open source" here, Specifically that "free software" is much more common and something that could be expected to be written naturally, without understanding this space. "open source" is not so common as part of natural language, and its main use has been around the realm of software and licensing.
  - dahart 4y ago
    IMO “free software” is misunderstood in exactly the same way “open source” is misunderstood, at least in the way you mean. Both terms are not good at getting the important point across in the title, because the words people want associated with the title aren’t actually in the title. This will forever be a problem as long as the title requires explanation (which it unquestionably does) and as long as software is a growing field and new people keep joining. I don’t know why the idea to say what you mean would get push back, we can’t expect people to interpret the phrase “open source” to mean more than what those two words imply. We can, and should, IMO, come up with a phrase that has words that imply the important bits. Following the CC model, maybe something like “derivation allowed” and “no discrimination”.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      Both terms are fine, long used and well-established. Free Software and Open Source software have complicated enough meanings that they need a sentence, not a phrase to explain; the phrase is just a label. And any software practitioner who doesn't know what people mean by Free or Open Source software isn't very good. If I start calling my OS "Windows" people might get upset even though windows predate MS by millennia.
- seba_dos1 4y ago
  > 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. Uhm, no? That's the opposite of what the article actually says. Public Domain code is Open Source without any doubt, period. There is however a set of acceptable limitations that you can place on your code and still call it Open Source - mostly related to attribution or keeping derived works under the same terms. If you place other limitations on what others are allowed to do with your code once acquired, it's not Open Source regardless of whether they can see the source code or not. Which makes perfect sense to me - I can easily see the source code of Windows 2000, but that doesn't make it open.

ssddanbrown 4y ago

Article author here. My concern would be that you could use any term but, as soon as that term gains value, it would start to be abused and blurred and we'd be in the same situation. It would be a shame to effectively throw away the value of "Open Source" that has been built up by the OSI and the community around Open Source software. I don't think the term is past being useful, the vast majority of its use i still see it applied as per the OSI definition, but there's always going to be a little maintenance needed.

dahart 4y ago
“OSI open source” would not have the problem you speculate on. I’m sure there are other alternatives that could also work to solve this problem. At this point, the counter problem is growing: the legitimate alternative meanings of the term “open source” are getting more used as time goes, not less, and speaking personally I don’t think maintenance or blog posts is going to fix it. Creative Commons licenses got pretty good at this by adding more words to each variant of their license titles. What about that? There’s an inherent problem with hoping to keep a term as short and generic as “open source”, when the issues you care about are separate from whether you’re allowed to look at the source.
- coconut08 4y ago
  the reason that creative commons isn't confusing and hasn't been co-opted isn't because it makes so much more sense. the reason that it's maintained it's meaning and can't be co-opted is because it is trademarked. if you make something that isn't creative commons but say that it is you can get sued. if you make something that isn't open source and say that it is you cant.
  - dahart 4y ago
    That’s a great reason to pick a different term, since “open source” can’t be trademarked. Something with “OSI” in the name probably could… BTW, I don’t think you can reasonably argue that “attribution non-commercial share-alike” is not more specific and not a better summary of the license conditions than the generic term “open source”. Trademark is a good point, however I think you’re wrong to say that better license titles is not part of why CC licenses are less confusing to a broad range of people.

thayne 4y ago

You are asking a large group of people to start using a different term, because a minority want a term that has had specific meaning for decades to have a more broad definition.

dahart 4y ago
Oh I think you have it completely backwards. The number of people who understand “open source” to mean OSI’s specific version is a tiny, tiny fraction of the number of people who assume “open source” means nothing more than what those two words clearly express: source available. This includes all new programmers (who outnumber us experienced programmers at all times), all lawmakers and law enforcement, all journalism, all business people, and the general public. I’m only offering ideas on how to solve an existing problem of unclear words and unreasonable expectations, not asking anyone to do anything. We can continue to use “open source”, and suffer the consequences and continue to complain. I think the problem the author called out will continue to get worse. Plus, as pointed out elsewhere in this thread, OSI co-opted this term from others who had already been using it differently before them. It would be way better if the term was clearly a name, rather than something that tries to gate-keep the meaning of general words. That would make it so you assume you need to look it up, and not assume what it means. It would be better if “open source” didn’t have other, easier to assume and understand meanings that came both before and after OSI’s ideas. If we don’t want to use a name, then it would be better if the phrase used a word or two to capture the ideas in OSI’s version. Using “open source” to mean something with restriction is a desire to have your cake and eat it too. This is in essence a marketing slogan that wants to rest multiple license limitations on the positive-sounding word “open”, without having to admit there are parts of the license that limit some kinds of openness and freedom in certain ways (under the possibly true belief that such limitations are the maximum balance of openness for everyone). Both term “open source” and “free software” suffer from this problem, hoping to establish a slogan out of two words that most clearly imply a meaning that is unfortunately antithetical to the movement. This is just a choice, and we could choose to be clear, or choose to fight the tide.
- thayne 4y ago
  > “open source” means nothing more than what those two words clearly express: source available Perhaps it is my long experience with OSS, but to me "open" expresses freedom to use and modify not just to peruse. Some source available licenses are in more of a gray area here. But I've also seen companies claim that they are open source just because their code is on GitHub, even though their license doesn't allow you to do anything with that source code. > all lawmakers and law enforcement, all journalism, all business people, and the general public. Most of these people have no idea what source code is, so open source means nothing to them, unless someone explains it to them. > It would be way better if the term was clearly a name, rather than something that tries to gate-keep the meaning of general words I don't disagree with you, but the term "open source" is already widely used (moreso I think than "free software" which IMO is even worse given the ambiguity of the word free in English). And I would argue that it is a term of art in the software industry. It isn't the only case where general words are used for specific meanings in our industry, by far. Coming up with a new term would require a lot of effort to teach everyone already familiar with open source a new term, rewriting a lot of literature about OSS, and probably some rebranding. And then, even if the new term does catch on, as others have mentioned, companies will probably still use the new term to incorrectly refer to things that don't meet the definition, for the same reasons they do now. Would it be better to have a more specific name, maybe something that could be trademarked? Probably. Is it worth changing the term at this point? Probably not.