4 ms·

Open Source has a very clear meaning in the context of IT, understood by developers and lawyers, judges and policy makers alike: it means that the code is distr

Open Source has a very clear meaning in the context of IT, understood by developers and lawyers, judges and policy makers alike: it means that the code is distributed with a license approved by the Open Source Initiative.

rat9988 3y ago
Open Source Initiative is not an authority here. We had this debate many many times. You may not agree with this point of view, but let's not make it as if yours is the universal one.
- bryant 3y ago
  > Open Source Initiative is not an authority here. We had this debate many many times. You may not agree with this point of view, but let's not make it as if yours is the universal one. It practically is, and they've done a good job of gathering the relevant citations to make that point. https://opensource.org/authority/ https://opensource.org/authority/ If you're passionately against this, feel free to make the relevant edit here as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Definitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Definitio... (but you may have to have a litany of citations to justify why the OSI definition is not a de facto standard if you want it to stick).
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- prepend 3y ago
  I’ve heard this line before and it confuses me. What is the authority? It seems to me that it’s OSI (around for years, reputable, etc) vs some for profit companies misusing common terminology in the, I think false, sense that people think non-open things they call open are good. Not sure if they are deluded or just wrong. Happy to talk about some new authority for open source licenses, but it seems like the “OSI isn’t an authority, nobody is” is an argument by 8th graders who just read the Wikipedia article on communism. OSI formed to help open source developers and users to better understand “proper” licenses from bullshit.
  - ddingus 3y ago
    Exactly right!
  - eudoxus 3y ago
    But "Open Source" both as a term and idea pre-dates the OSI's formation. The general definition of "Open Source" shouldn't be universally defined by a single body. The OSI has done a great job at introducing a legally ratified and globally recognized license format to help reduce uncertainty, but it is not, and has on several occasions been denied[0], the global authority on the definition of Open Source. They have a trademark and are the authority for "Open Source Initiative Approved License" (ie: "OSI License") specifically. [0]: https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php/ https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...
    - prepend 3y ago
      Of course it predates the formation of OSI. OSI didn’t invent the term, it’s just a group of people who formed to formalize and help adoption. It’s not like there’s some competing definition. OSI has been around for 20+ years and only recently did a few companies decide they want a different definition so they can make more money. But the issue isn’t that there’s some word police. The issue is that open source has a definition in use and when people try to overload, it gets confusing. I wish people wouldn’t do that, but it’s free country (free as in speech, not free as in beer). No one cares if source is “open” in that people can view it. In that case windows is “open.” The important part of open is the ability to change, reuse, and participate. Why would anyone care if source is visible but not usable? I’ve been able to decompile forever. I can see the source if I need to. The community and reuse aspect is important. Finally, OSI doesn’t define the term. They just certify licenses that adhere to open source principles and ideas. The community defines the term. Everyone is free to make up new licenses. OSI just helps the community filter out noise by reviewing licenses that actually are open source.
      - eudoxus 3y ago
        > Finally, OSI doesn’t define the term. They just certify licenses that adhere to open source principles and ideas. The community defines the term. Everyone is free to make up new licenses. OSI just helps the community filter out noise by reviewing licenses that actually are open source. This is exactly my point, the community defines the term. The OSI definition does a good job of making the legal aspect of (their vision for) "open source" explicit, but it also adds additional definitions beyond what the average layperson might consider "Open Source". Take section 5 and 6 of the "Open Source Definition"[0]. It states you can't discriminate against "persons, groups, fields, or endeavors". So if I wrote some software, put a MIT license on it, with a single additional clause that says the CIA can not use this software. Magically, it is no longer "Open Source" according to the OSI, even though 99.9999% of people can freely use it under the MIT. [0]: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd They have a definition, they even have a pretty good definition, but the OSI shouldn't be the definition. All OSI licenses are open source licenses, but not all open source licenses are OSI licenses. (All thumbs are fingers, not all fingers are thumbs).
- Aeolun 3y ago
  It’s not about the OSI. They just happen to have a convenient list that everyone agrees on.
strus 3y ago
I am pretty sure that for most developers open source = source code available, and nothing else. Anegdotally I have been a professional dev for 10 years and this is the first time I hear your definition of open source.
- wheels 3y ago
  That's probably because you've only been a professional developer for 10 years. Here's a quick history lesson: If we go back, say, 25 years, when the term Open Source entered common usage, it was a way of describing the things that had thusfar been labeled "free software", but as a way of deemphasizing the notion of the Free Software movement that saw non-free-software as immoral. It was a term to describe things that met the Free Software Definition, but without harping on morality. It was very much a counter-culture (it was, after all, the Free Software movement and the Open Source movement), and very much not a generic term for having access to the source. That was already super common in enterprise agreements, and nobody considered that to be open source. Then around the early 2000s, Linux became hot shit, and some large companies wanted to avail themselves to the rising tide and began labeling their watered down versions of "source available" things as open source in an attempt to jump on the bandwagon. But that was an intentional attempt to water down the definition everyone already understood for marketing reasons. You not knowing this history means that to some extent the marketing worked. But just realize that in arguing here, you're participating in the astroturfing. Also, get off my lawn!
  - therealdrag0 3y ago
    Love it. But I’m also in the camp that didn’t know this history and had a softer definition of “open source”. That’s just how language changes, shrug.
    - wheels 3y ago
      I'm also often an advocate of what you're saying there, "language changes..." But this I think is one of those cases where there is a difference, because it's also descriptive of a community, and it matters how that community sees itself. With whatever definition of open source you have, the most high traction stuff that we all rely on (I originally wrote, "most", but I think e.g. the Linux kernel matters more than a random abandoned repo on Github) is produced by people that use that older definition of open source, and mostly by people who identify with that social movement. (I for a long time was one of those people.) In this case I do believe that in that all of us now rely on open source software, that redefining it in opposition to the group of people who produce that thing is less than respectful.
Patrickmi 3y ago
Open source doesn’t mean active authority, because you have the source code doesn’t you have some level of control on the repo that the source code is being host, having Go source code doesn’t mean you have the right to just commit into the Golang repo without checks and decisions
- type0 3y ago
  > just commit into the Golang repo without checks and decisions Oh, but you can, just do it in your fork. You can't claim their trademark but that's a completely different thing.

rat9988 3y ago

Open Source Initiative is not an authority here. We had this debate many many times. You may not agree with this point of view, but let's not make it as if yours is the universal one.

bryant 3y ago
> Open Source Initiative is not an authority here. We had this debate many many times. You may not agree with this point of view, but let's not make it as if yours is the universal one. It practically is, and they've done a good job of gathering the relevant citations to make that point. https://opensource.org/authority/ https://opensource.org/authority/ If you're passionately against this, feel free to make the relevant edit here as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Definitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Definitio... (but you may have to have a litany of citations to justify why the OSI definition is not a de facto standard if you want it to stick).
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
prepend 3y ago
I’ve heard this line before and it confuses me. What is the authority? It seems to me that it’s OSI (around for years, reputable, etc) vs some for profit companies misusing common terminology in the, I think false, sense that people think non-open things they call open are good. Not sure if they are deluded or just wrong. Happy to talk about some new authority for open source licenses, but it seems like the “OSI isn’t an authority, nobody is” is an argument by 8th graders who just read the Wikipedia article on communism. OSI formed to help open source developers and users to better understand “proper” licenses from bullshit.
- ddingus 3y ago
  Exactly right!
- eudoxus 3y ago
  But "Open Source" both as a term and idea pre-dates the OSI's formation. The general definition of "Open Source" shouldn't be universally defined by a single body. The OSI has done a great job at introducing a legally ratified and globally recognized license format to help reduce uncertainty, but it is not, and has on several occasions been denied[0], the global authority on the definition of Open Source. They have a trademark and are the authority for "Open Source Initiative Approved License" (ie: "OSI License") specifically. [0]: https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php/ https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...
  - prepend 3y ago
    Of course it predates the formation of OSI. OSI didn’t invent the term, it’s just a group of people who formed to formalize and help adoption. It’s not like there’s some competing definition. OSI has been around for 20+ years and only recently did a few companies decide they want a different definition so they can make more money. But the issue isn’t that there’s some word police. The issue is that open source has a definition in use and when people try to overload, it gets confusing. I wish people wouldn’t do that, but it’s free country (free as in speech, not free as in beer). No one cares if source is “open” in that people can view it. In that case windows is “open.” The important part of open is the ability to change, reuse, and participate. Why would anyone care if source is visible but not usable? I’ve been able to decompile forever. I can see the source if I need to. The community and reuse aspect is important. Finally, OSI doesn’t define the term. They just certify licenses that adhere to open source principles and ideas. The community defines the term. Everyone is free to make up new licenses. OSI just helps the community filter out noise by reviewing licenses that actually are open source.
    - eudoxus 3y ago
      > Finally, OSI doesn’t define the term. They just certify licenses that adhere to open source principles and ideas. The community defines the term. Everyone is free to make up new licenses. OSI just helps the community filter out noise by reviewing licenses that actually are open source. This is exactly my point, the community defines the term. The OSI definition does a good job of making the legal aspect of (their vision for) "open source" explicit, but it also adds additional definitions beyond what the average layperson might consider "Open Source". Take section 5 and 6 of the "Open Source Definition"[0]. It states you can't discriminate against "persons, groups, fields, or endeavors". So if I wrote some software, put a MIT license on it, with a single additional clause that says the CIA can not use this software. Magically, it is no longer "Open Source" according to the OSI, even though 99.9999% of people can freely use it under the MIT. [0]: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd They have a definition, they even have a pretty good definition, but the OSI shouldn't be the definition. All OSI licenses are open source licenses, but not all open source licenses are OSI licenses. (All thumbs are fingers, not all fingers are thumbs).
Aeolun 3y ago
It’s not about the OSI. They just happen to have a convenient list that everyone agrees on.

strus 3y ago

I am pretty sure that for most developers open source = source code available, and nothing else. Anegdotally I have been a professional dev for 10 years and this is the first time I hear your definition of open source.

wheels 3y ago
That's probably because you've only been a professional developer for 10 years. Here's a quick history lesson: If we go back, say, 25 years, when the term Open Source entered common usage, it was a way of describing the things that had thusfar been labeled "free software", but as a way of deemphasizing the notion of the Free Software movement that saw non-free-software as immoral. It was a term to describe things that met the Free Software Definition, but without harping on morality. It was very much a counter-culture (it was, after all, the Free Software movement and the Open Source movement), and very much not a generic term for having access to the source. That was already super common in enterprise agreements, and nobody considered that to be open source. Then around the early 2000s, Linux became hot shit, and some large companies wanted to avail themselves to the rising tide and began labeling their watered down versions of "source available" things as open source in an attempt to jump on the bandwagon. But that was an intentional attempt to water down the definition everyone already understood for marketing reasons. You not knowing this history means that to some extent the marketing worked. But just realize that in arguing here, you're participating in the astroturfing. Also, get off my lawn!
- therealdrag0 3y ago
  Love it. But I’m also in the camp that didn’t know this history and had a softer definition of “open source”. That’s just how language changes, shrug.
  - wheels 3y ago
    I'm also often an advocate of what you're saying there, "language changes..." But this I think is one of those cases where there is a difference, because it's also descriptive of a community, and it matters how that community sees itself. With whatever definition of open source you have, the most high traction stuff that we all rely on (I originally wrote, "most", but I think e.g. the Linux kernel matters more than a random abandoned repo on Github) is produced by people that use that older definition of open source, and mostly by people who identify with that social movement. (I for a long time was one of those people.) In this case I do believe that in that all of us now rely on open source software, that redefining it in opposition to the group of people who produce that thing is less than respectful.

Patrickmi 3y ago

Open source doesn’t mean active authority, because you have the source code doesn’t you have some level of control on the repo that the source code is being host, having Go source code doesn’t mean you have the right to just commit into the Golang repo without checks and decisions

type0 3y ago
> just commit into the Golang repo without checks and decisions Oh, but you can, just do it in your fork. You can't claim their trademark but that's a completely different thing.