4 ms·

OSI couldn't trademark "Open Source" and the common usage of the term (source available) has steered away from the OSI definition.

by jpablo 4y ago

seba_dos1 4y ago
[citation needed] Common usage has matched the OSI definition for decades. Even Wikipedia acknowledges it [0]. There are always some people who are confused about the terms, sure, but those usually come simply from lack of exposure and experience around FLOSS communities. Trademarks have nothing to do with it; it's not OSI that owns the term, but the community that uses it and widely agrees with OSI's definition. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Definitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Definitio...
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
  In my experience, some people are genuinely confused, but also a lot of people who misuse it and argue that OSI shouldn't be the authority because they really want to call their license "open source" even though it isn't.
- modzu 4y ago
  i don't think that's quite fair. for example take stallman's comment, linked from your wikipedia reference above, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software” is “You can look at the source code.” This is a much weaker criterion than free software; it includes free software, but also some proprietary programs, including Xv, and Qt under its original license (before the QPL). That obvious meaning for “open source” is not the meaning that its advocates intend. The result is that most people misunderstand what those advocates are advocating. Here is how writer Neal Stephenson defined “open source”: Linux is “open source” software meaning, simply, that anyone can get copies of its source code files." i wouldn't call Stephenson's confusion here a rare occurrence; "Source available" hasn't really caught on, but instead open source remains ambiguous
  - seba_dos1 4y ago
    I agree that the term isn't self-explanatory, which is why people get easily confused. I also happen to agree with Stallman there and I strongly prefer to use the term "Free Software" instead, as it highlights what's actually important. Nevertheless, the "obvious meaning" isn't how it's actually being used in communities that produce and use such software, so its actual meaning is still worth pointing out.

OSI couldn't trademark "Open Source" and the common usage of the term (source available) has steered away from the OSI definition.

by jpablo 4y ago

OSI couldn't trademark "Open Source" and the common usage of the term (source available) has steered away from the OSI definition.

seba_dos1 4y ago

[citation needed] Common usage has matched the OSI definition for decades. Even Wikipedia acknowledges it [0]. There are always some people who are confused about the terms, sure, but those usually come simply from lack of exposure and experience around FLOSS communities. Trademarks have nothing to do with it; it's not OSI that owns the term, but the community that uses it and widely agrees with OSI's definition. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Definitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Definitio...

yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
In my experience, some people are genuinely confused, but also a lot of people who misuse it and argue that OSI shouldn't be the authority because they really want to call their license "open source" even though it isn't.
modzu 4y ago
i don't think that's quite fair. for example take stallman's comment, linked from your wikipedia reference above, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software” is “You can look at the source code.” This is a much weaker criterion than free software; it includes free software, but also some proprietary programs, including Xv, and Qt under its original license (before the QPL). That obvious meaning for “open source” is not the meaning that its advocates intend. The result is that most people misunderstand what those advocates are advocating. Here is how writer Neal Stephenson defined “open source”: Linux is “open source” software meaning, simply, that anyone can get copies of its source code files." i wouldn't call Stephenson's confusion here a rare occurrence; "Source available" hasn't really caught on, but instead open source remains ambiguous
- seba_dos1 4y ago
  I agree that the term isn't self-explanatory, which is why people get easily confused. I also happen to agree with Stallman there and I strongly prefer to use the term "Free Software" instead, as it highlights what's actually important. Nevertheless, the "obvious meaning" isn't how it's actually being used in communities that produce and use such software, so its actual meaning is still worth pointing out.