3 ms·

This isn't helpful. The community defers to the OSI's definition because it captures what they care about. We've seen people try to deceptively describe non-OS

This isn't helpful. The community defers to the OSI's definition because it captures what they care about. We've seen people try to deceptively describe non-OSS projects as open source, and no doubt we will continue to see it. Thankfully the community (including Hacker News) is quick to call it out, and to insist on not cheapening the term. This is one the topics that just keeps turning up: * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24483168 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24483168 * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31203209 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31203209 * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36591820 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36591820

CamperBob2 2y ago
This isn't helpful. The community... Speak for yourself, please. The term is much older than 1998, with one easily-Googled example being https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000639879.pdf https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000639879.pdf , and an explicit case of IT-related usage being https://i.imgur.com/Nw4is6s.png https://i.imgur.com/Nw4is6s.png from https://www.google.com/books/edition/InfoWarCon/09X3Ove9uKgC?hl=en&gbpv=0 https://www.google.com/books/edition/InfoWarCon/09X3Ove9uKgC... . Unless a registered trademark is involved (spoiler: it's not) no one, whether part of a so-called "community" or not, has any authority to gatekeep or dictate the terms under which a generic phrase like "open source" can be used.
- Flimm 2y ago
  Neither of those usages relate to IT, they both are about sources of intelligence (espionage). Even if they were, the OSI definition won, nobody is using the definitions from 1995 CIA or the 1996 InfoConWar book in the realm of IT, not even Facebook. The community has the authority to complain about companies mis-labelling their pork products as vegan, even if nobody has a registered trademark on the term vegan. Would you tell people to shut up about that case because they don't have a registered trademark? Likewise, the community has authority to complain about Meta/Facebook mis-labelling code as open source even when they put restrictions on usage. It's not gate-keeping or dictatorship to complain about being misled or being lied to.
  - CamperBob2 2y ago
    Would you tell people to shut up about that case because they don't have a registered trademark? I especially like how I'm the one telling people to "shut up" all of a sudden. As for the rest, see my other reply.
    - Flimm 2y ago
      You're right, I and those who agree with me were the first to ask people to "shut up", in this case, to ask Meta to stop misusing the term open source. And I was the first to say "shut up", and I know that can be inflammatory and disrespectful, so I shouldn't have used it. I'm sorry. We're here in a discussion forum, I want you to express your opinion even it is to complain about my complaints. For what it's worth, your counter-arguments have been stronger and better referenced than any other I have read (for the case of accepting a looser definition of the term open source in the realm of IT).
      - CamperBob2 2y ago
        All good, and I also apologize if my objection came across as disrespectful. This whole 'Open Source' thing is a bigger pet peeve than it should be, because I've received criticism for using the term on a page where I literally just posted a .zip file full of source code. The smart thing to do would have been to ignore and forget the criticism, which I will now work harder at doing. In the case of a pork producer who labels their products as 'vegan', that's different because there is some authority behind the usage of 'vegan'. It's a standard English-language word that according to Merriam-Webster goes back to 1944. So that would amount to an open-and-shut case of false advertising, which I don't think applies here at all.
        MaxBarraclough 2y ago
        > In the case of a pork producer who labels their products as 'vegan', that's different because there is some authority behind the usage of 'vegan'. I don't see the difference. Open source software is a term of art with a specific meaning accepted by its community. When people misuse the term, invariably in such a way as to broaden it to include whatever it is they're pushing, it's right that the community responds harshly.

CamperBob2 2y ago

This isn't helpful. The community... Speak for yourself, please. The term is much older than 1998, with one easily-Googled example being https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000639879.pdf https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000639879.pdf , and an explicit case of IT-related usage being https://i.imgur.com/Nw4is6s.png https://i.imgur.com/Nw4is6s.png from https://www.google.com/books/edition/InfoWarCon/09X3Ove9uKgC?hl=en&gbpv=0 https://www.google.com/books/edition/InfoWarCon/09X3Ove9uKgC... . Unless a registered trademark is involved (spoiler: it's not) no one, whether part of a so-called "community" or not, has any authority to gatekeep or dictate the terms under which a generic phrase like "open source" can be used.

Flimm 2y ago
Neither of those usages relate to IT, they both are about sources of intelligence (espionage). Even if they were, the OSI definition won, nobody is using the definitions from 1995 CIA or the 1996 InfoConWar book in the realm of IT, not even Facebook. The community has the authority to complain about companies mis-labelling their pork products as vegan, even if nobody has a registered trademark on the term vegan. Would you tell people to shut up about that case because they don't have a registered trademark? Likewise, the community has authority to complain about Meta/Facebook mis-labelling code as open source even when they put restrictions on usage. It's not gate-keeping or dictatorship to complain about being misled or being lied to.
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  Would you tell people to shut up about that case because they don't have a registered trademark? I especially like how I'm the one telling people to "shut up" all of a sudden. As for the rest, see my other reply.
  - Flimm 2y ago
    You're right, I and those who agree with me were the first to ask people to "shut up", in this case, to ask Meta to stop misusing the term open source. And I was the first to say "shut up", and I know that can be inflammatory and disrespectful, so I shouldn't have used it. I'm sorry. We're here in a discussion forum, I want you to express your opinion even it is to complain about my complaints. For what it's worth, your counter-arguments have been stronger and better referenced than any other I have read (for the case of accepting a looser definition of the term open source in the realm of IT).
    - CamperBob2 2y ago
      All good, and I also apologize if my objection came across as disrespectful. This whole 'Open Source' thing is a bigger pet peeve than it should be, because I've received criticism for using the term on a page where I literally just posted a .zip file full of source code. The smart thing to do would have been to ignore and forget the criticism, which I will now work harder at doing. In the case of a pork producer who labels their products as 'vegan', that's different because there is some authority behind the usage of 'vegan'. It's a standard English-language word that according to Merriam-Webster goes back to 1944. So that would amount to an open-and-shut case of false advertising, which I don't think applies here at all.
      - MaxBarraclough 2y ago
        > In the case of a pork producer who labels their products as 'vegan', that's different because there is some authority behind the usage of 'vegan'. I don't see the difference. Open source software is a term of art with a specific meaning accepted by its community. When people misuse the term, invariably in such a way as to broaden it to include whatever it is they're pushing, it's right that the community responds harshly.