4 ms·

Pretty much everyone I know in the industry uses the definition of "open" defined by the OSI, in relation to "open source": https://opensource.org/ https://open

by growse 3y ago

Pretty much everyone I know in the industry uses the definition of "open" defined by the OSI, in relation to "open source": https://opensource.org/ https://opensource.org/ It's not a new term. > They're not dishonest. That you're unwilling or unable to accept anything other than a black/white worldview is not their problem. You can't be "a little bit open source". You are or you aren't. Some people might not accept that the definition is clear and well-formed, but for a lot of us it is. If you want to write proprietary software, great. People just get annoyed when it's dressed up as "a bit like open source".

arp242 3y ago
> You can't be "a little bit open source". You are or you aren't. Of course you can. There are 10 bullet points on the OSD. If you meet 9 then it's 90% there. This is obvious better than 80%, which is better than 50%, which is better than 0%. > Pretty much everyone I know in the industry uses the definition of "open" defined by the OSI, in relation to "open source" OpenLinux, OpenDOS, OpenGL, OpenBSD, OpenStep, X/Open (later: Open Software Foundation, The Open Group), Common Open Software Environment, OpenVMS, etc. etc. Some of these are also "Open Source", some are not, and for some "Open Source" doesn't even make sense. But all of these usages of "Open" predate "Open Source", and I'm sure there are dozen more examples if I cared to look further. Oh, and here's Bill Joy using "Open Source Code" in 1985: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DdoGPav3fc&t=826s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DdoGPav3fc&t=826s The fact that HN has a discussion about "what Open source really means" demonstrates that NOT everyone has the same definition, otherwise these discussions wouldn't exist. To lay claim on not just the phrase "Open Source" but the very adverb "Open" is not just historically incorrect but also hugely unreasonable.
- growse 3y ago
  > Of course you can. There are 10 bullet points on the OSD. If you meet 9 then it's 90% there. This is obvious better than 80%, which is better than 50%, which is better than 0%. Way may just have to agree to disagree then. I find it interesting that the only time anyone talks about "mostly" or "nearly" open source is in the context of a company looking to get the marketing benefit of association, and maybe some people to do some free contributions for them, without being bound by the social contract at the heart of the FOSS values. But maybe that's just me. > To lay claim on not just the phrase "Open Source" but the very adverb "Open" is not just historically incorrect but also hugely unreasonable. So this is my bad, I should have been clearer. When I said "'but-for-one' is not open by definition,", I meant in the context of FOSS, and specifically the definitions the OSI maintains. "But-for-one" violates criteria #5 & #6. And yes, the word "open" has existed for a long time, but that's sort of why the OSI standardized the term. This has been a solved problem for decades, and efforts to dilute what it means are only ever looked upon with extreme skepticism. If people think the OSI definition is bad or incomplete, then that's an argument worth having out in the open. But that's not what I see.

by growse 3y ago

arp242 3y ago

> You can't be "a little bit open source". You are or you aren't. Of course you can. There are 10 bullet points on the OSD. If you meet 9 then it's 90% there. This is obvious better than 80%, which is better than 50%, which is better than 0%. > Pretty much everyone I know in the industry uses the definition of "open" defined by the OSI, in relation to "open source" OpenLinux, OpenDOS, OpenGL, OpenBSD, OpenStep, X/Open (later: Open Software Foundation, The Open Group), Common Open Software Environment, OpenVMS, etc. etc. Some of these are also "Open Source", some are not, and for some "Open Source" doesn't even make sense. But all of these usages of "Open" predate "Open Source", and I'm sure there are dozen more examples if I cared to look further. Oh, and here's Bill Joy using "Open Source Code" in 1985: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DdoGPav3fc&t=826s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DdoGPav3fc&t=826s The fact that HN has a discussion about "what Open source really means" demonstrates that NOT everyone has the same definition, otherwise these discussions wouldn't exist. To lay claim on not just the phrase "Open Source" but the very adverb "Open" is not just historically incorrect but also hugely unreasonable.

growse 3y ago
> Of course you can. There are 10 bullet points on the OSD. If you meet 9 then it's 90% there. This is obvious better than 80%, which is better than 50%, which is better than 0%. Way may just have to agree to disagree then. I find it interesting that the only time anyone talks about "mostly" or "nearly" open source is in the context of a company looking to get the marketing benefit of association, and maybe some people to do some free contributions for them, without being bound by the social contract at the heart of the FOSS values. But maybe that's just me. > To lay claim on not just the phrase "Open Source" but the very adverb "Open" is not just historically incorrect but also hugely unreasonable. So this is my bad, I should have been clearer. When I said "'but-for-one' is not open by definition,", I meant in the context of FOSS, and specifically the definitions the OSI maintains. "But-for-one" violates criteria #5 & #6. And yes, the word "open" has existed for a long time, but that's sort of why the OSI standardized the term. This has been a solved problem for decades, and efforts to dilute what it means are only ever looked upon with extreme skepticism. If people think the OSI definition is bad or incomplete, then that's an argument worth having out in the open. But that's not what I see.