4 ms·

OSI's definition of open source is one definition of it, and not necessarily one everyone agrees with. Folks claiming their work is open source are not beholden

OSI's definition of open source is one definition of it, and not necessarily one everyone agrees with. Folks claiming their work is open source are not beholden to this one organization's opinion about what can and cannot be considered open source. That's not to say I agree with the choice of using it in this instance, but I respect the fact that the term isn't precise enough to say it's wrong.

pixl97 2y ago
At the end of the day until there is a legal or at least common-law definition of a term, the term can have a pretty wide definition when a large number of contracts are reviewed. Typically as cases around the definition go through court they become presidence. We've not reached that place in the 'open source' world.
skybrian 2y ago
The OSI definition is fairly precise and the most commonly used definition. Anything else will add confusion. We should promote the OSI definition and discourage imprecise usage.
exceptione 2y ago
Yeah, let's agree the term open source can mean anything, for example closed source. There is no small nuance to intellectualize about here if 98% of the discussed thing is the contrary of what you claim it is. (Now, one could argue it is 90%, won't help)
actionfromafar 2y ago
In the age of Software Bill of Materials and increasing focus on upstream attacks, the OSI definitions via the SPDX list, is getting increasingly rigid and used as terms of art. While I like you am a linguistic descriptivist, I can also recognize attempts to confuse and white-wash.
Hizonner 2y ago
The OSD is literally as old as the phrase itself, and was popularized along with the phrase. I actually don't like some parts of the OSD that much, but it's as close to a universally accepted definition as you'll ever get for anything. ... and even if you don't accept the OSD, what these people are distributing isn't source code in any sense at all. Nor do their restrictions usually resemble what the average person would think of as "open".

pixl97 2y ago

At the end of the day until there is a legal or at least common-law definition of a term, the term can have a pretty wide definition when a large number of contracts are reviewed. Typically as cases around the definition go through court they become presidence. We've not reached that place in the 'open source' world.

skybrian 2y ago

The OSI definition is fairly precise and the most commonly used definition. Anything else will add confusion. We should promote the OSI definition and discourage imprecise usage.

exceptione 2y ago

Yeah, let's agree the term open source can mean anything, for example closed source. There is no small nuance to intellectualize about here if 98% of the discussed thing is the contrary of what you claim it is. (Now, one could argue it is 90%, won't help)

actionfromafar 2y ago

In the age of Software Bill of Materials and increasing focus on upstream attacks, the OSI definitions via the SPDX list, is getting increasingly rigid and used as terms of art. While I like you am a linguistic descriptivist, I can also recognize attempts to confuse and white-wash.

Hizonner 2y ago

The OSD is literally as old as the phrase itself, and was popularized along with the phrase. I actually don't like some parts of the OSD that much, but it's as close to a universally accepted definition as you'll ever get for anything. ... and even if you don't accept the OSD, what these people are distributing isn't source code in any sense at all. Nor do their restrictions usually resemble what the average person would think of as "open".