3 ms·

The Open Source Initiative doesn’t and never did, and its founder (ESR) invented the phrase, having forked the Open Source Definition from the Debian Free Softw

The Open Source Initiative doesn’t and never did, and its founder (ESR) invented the phrase, having forked the Open Source Definition from the Debian Free Software Guidelines. (Before that, the common term was “sourceware”, and it was in fact somewhat vague as to what counts or not. It’s all but forgotten now, except for the website formerly maintained by Cygnus Support.) Even the 2000s “Linux is a cancer” Microsoft chose to invent the term “shared source” rather than attempt to dilute “open source” when they publicly released some source code for academic and noncommercial use. (They still faced accusations of terminology confusion, which might well have been true.) In that respect, the recent attempts at redefinition by Mongo, Elastic, et al. are a truly novel strategy.

cxr 4y ago
Weird when a comment tries to dispel a common but annoying presumption not supported by the record, but the attempt at debunking itself contains relies on similar presumptions that lead to claims that are counter to what we know is true. > its founder (ESR) invented the phrase No, Raymond was at the meeting where it was coined, and he enthusiastically helped popularize the term. Christine Peterson invented it.
- mananaysiempre 4y ago
  > Raymond was at the meeting where [“open source”] was coined, and he enthusiastically helped popularize the term. Christine Peterson invented it. I wanted to grump about this not being written down, but even the OSI history page[1] mentions it. Huh. Thanks! [1] https://opensource.org/history/ https://opensource.org/history/
n4r9 4y ago
I stand corrected. Is it true nevertheless that open source software must make its source code publicly available? And that "free" is generally stronger than "open"?
- seba_dos1 4y ago
  For all practical purposes, the terms "free software" and "open source" are equivalent - the difference is political (which still matters of course). The source code doesn't have to be publicly available with either, but every user must have access to it on request and they may redistribute it, so practically it usually becomes publicly available anyway.
- pabs3 4y ago
  This is incorrect, the OSD doesn't require that the source code be public, just that it be available to the same people the compiled binaries of the software is available to. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
- redwood 4y ago
  There is a spectrum of perspectives on this topic. The "free software" maximalist side would argue that there are two ideas, free "as in beer" and free "as in freedom"... and they will typically say that anything that isn't free "as in freedom" does not conform to their view of what is in the spirit of open source. Then there's the other side of the perspective which argues that open source is being strip-mined by hyperscalers and that new licenses with very specific classes of restrictions aimed at protecting the developers are needed. That latter group typically would argue that the OSI is realistically controlled by the hyperscalers and hence it's all quite nuanced. It's a classic political debate with extremes on all sides and the rest of us having to survive somewhere in the middle

cxr 4y ago

Weird when a comment tries to dispel a common but annoying presumption not supported by the record, but the attempt at debunking itself contains relies on similar presumptions that lead to claims that are counter to what we know is true. > its founder (ESR) invented the phrase No, Raymond was at the meeting where it was coined, and he enthusiastically helped popularize the term. Christine Peterson invented it.

mananaysiempre 4y ago
> Raymond was at the meeting where [“open source”] was coined, and he enthusiastically helped popularize the term. Christine Peterson invented it. I wanted to grump about this not being written down, but even the OSI history page[1] mentions it. Huh. Thanks! [1] https://opensource.org/history/ https://opensource.org/history/

n4r9 4y ago

I stand corrected. Is it true nevertheless that open source software must make its source code publicly available? And that "free" is generally stronger than "open"?

seba_dos1 4y ago
For all practical purposes, the terms "free software" and "open source" are equivalent - the difference is political (which still matters of course). The source code doesn't have to be publicly available with either, but every user must have access to it on request and they may redistribute it, so practically it usually becomes publicly available anyway.
pabs3 4y ago
This is incorrect, the OSD doesn't require that the source code be public, just that it be available to the same people the compiled binaries of the software is available to. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
redwood 4y ago
There is a spectrum of perspectives on this topic. The "free software" maximalist side would argue that there are two ideas, free "as in beer" and free "as in freedom"... and they will typically say that anything that isn't free "as in freedom" does not conform to their view of what is in the spirit of open source. Then there's the other side of the perspective which argues that open source is being strip-mined by hyperscalers and that new licenses with very specific classes of restrictions aimed at protecting the developers are needed. That latter group typically would argue that the OSI is realistically controlled by the hyperscalers and hence it's all quite nuanced. It's a classic political debate with extremes on all sides and the rest of us having to survive somewhere in the middle