4 ms·

I hear what you are saying - language evolves, and we should evolve with it. I'm just not sure it's true in this case. Open Source has a -legal- meaning - in t

I hear what you are saying - language evolves, and we should evolve with it. I'm just not sure it's true in this case. Open Source has a -legal- meaning - in the sense that Open Source Licenses are legal documents which specifically cover what can and can't be done. Unfortunately the legal system does not just evolve terminology to suit whatever the current venicular is. >> a) whether we can disambiguate between "public source" The common phrase for this is "source available" >> by irately pointing the discrepancy out we only come out as pedantic When we allow words to change, when we allow misinterpretations of those words to proliferate, then we need to accept we are giving up the very freedoms those words set out to mean. If we just accept a new definition of Open Source today, then what's to stop the next generation of people/companies redefining it again in 10 years time? What happens when we start (colloquially) using the phrase to mean "the source is open inside the company, but not available outside it." Unfortunately we see this language evolution around us all the time. "Free Speech" doesn't mean what most people think it means. Neither does "Constitutional Right". And evidently there's a group of technologists, or would-be-technologists (never mind joe public) who do not understand what Open Source means. To you, defending the term becomes pedantry. But you live in a world where you have the access to code that you do, precisely because the older generation stood up for the specifics of the term - and fought for the very freedoms you now enjoy. You describe the corrections as "technically correct" without perhaps understanding the magnitude of effort that has gone into making it what it is. So forgive us please if we hold tightly to what was so hard won. Perhaps, and I mean this sincerely, rather than co-opting the past to suit your current needs, it's time for the current generation to fight for the ideals that -you- believe in. Just please, don't co-opt our hard-won terminology to do so.

lloeki 2y ago
> The common phrase for this is "source available" I know! Unfortunately that one doesn't seem to quite catch on beyond open source advocates (see my other nearby comment) > Open Source has a -legal- meaning - in the sense that Open Source Licenses are legal documents which specifically cover what can and can't be done. Does it? As in, is there any law-binding document that universally states what it means? Or has it been ruled anywhere what is or isn't open source? (respecting license terms may have been challenged, that as much is true, but that's about the license contents, not what is or isn't "open source") I may very well be unaware of such a thing existing, and I would be glad to learn there is, but the FSF or OSI or the collective mindhive of hackers (in the jargon file sense; and not saying that derogatorily) or whatever saying "this is what Open Source is", while a powerful community statement, is not particularly law-binding. AIUI even among the proponents they even kind of disagree on what "open source" is and is not. > "Free Speech" doesn't mean what most people think it means. Neither does "Constitutional Right". These, comparatively, are legally defined. > To you, defending the term becomes pedantry. I didn't mean to imply that I was personally thinking it was pedantry, only that it can (and often is) perceived as such. I am very much in favour of using proper terms, but I also recognise that it may not be as useful as one might think to fight the semantic fight in order to properly fight the value fight. > So forgive us please if we hold tightly to what was so hard won. Please, continue to hold tightly! Although sometimes one realises they can't ever hope to convince others they're "wrong", so maybe there are other ways to win... "You can't win, but there are alternatives to fighting." As a believer in and advocate of FOSS, I found it much more effective to battle on the value grounds instead of losing the audience right away, instead reaching out into their level of understanding. More often than not, they end up educating themselves down the road. Kind of a "use the opponent's weight against them" move.
- bruce511 2y ago
  Open Source is a legal term in the sense that it becomes legal documents, licenses, and those licenses either conform to the OSI definition, or they do not. Sure, you can write anything you like in your license, you can call it Open Source, but if it's not compatible with the OSI definition then it's not compatible with the ideals and values of Open Source. The problem with battling on value grounds, but abandoning the name, allows others to appropriate the name, and from that change the values. I find it egregious that companies get to water down the values - they get to slowly shift perception of what "Open Source" is - and along the way the values get lost. The values were written down. They got given a name. Now commercial interests want to appropriate the name, get the goodwill that comes with the name, but at the same time water down, remove, or alter, the underlying values. I am no FOSS accolyte. My day job is commercial software. The (non-existent) financial model of OSS doesn't work for me. I am -very- happy that licenses of all kinds exist. I am free to choose what programs I use, and what licenses I choose to accept. I am largely a consumer of open source, and a very minor contributor. It is as a -user- not a -developer- that I appreciate what Open Source (and Free) software mean, and I'm not ok with companies appropriating that term to mean "whatever they want".
MyFedora 2y ago
There is no legal meaning behind and no legal protection for the term open source. A proprietary software license can use the term open source in the license and define it as the source code is available. Legal systems don't care about what some random organization like the OSI thinks open source stands for.
- bruce511 2y ago
  Which is why when a company releases a license that they claim is "Open Source" and it's not compatible with the OSI definition, then we need to stand up and say bullshit. They are welcome to release it any way they like. If they think they can somehow fool developers by calling it Open Source when it isn't, well good for them. If you as a developer want to contribute to, and promote, their product then go for it. But if it's not Open Source then I call bullshit, and don't be surprised when the -Open Source- community gets upset.
amiga386 2y ago
> Open Source has a -legal- meaning I don't think it does, but "open source software as defined by the Open Source Initiative" does have legal meaning. Equally, "free software" does not have a legal meaning either, but "free software as defined by the Free Software Foundation" does. That said, Stallman is probably right, the term "open source" cooked up by Perens et al was language used to mollify business people who feared the term "free software" (and "copyleft"... and Stallman). The term got traction and the popularity of the software greatly increased. But, by using this ambiguous phrase to describe software that you not only have the right to see the source of, but also to modify and redistribute, it opens the door to shysters who would try to claim that "source available" is somehow "open source"... because the "source" is "open".
doix 2y ago
In general, I agree with you. I am annoyed that people use "open source" instead of "source available". But I disagree with: > But you live in a world where you have the access to code that you do, precisely because the older generation stood up for the specifics of the term - and fought for the very freedoms you now enjoy. No, we have access to code because people fought for the "idea", not the word. Words are used to communicate ideas. The important thing is that people understand each other. Right now, the communication is muddled because the term "open source" can be interpreted by someone unfamiliar with the origin of the term as "source available". Yes, it sucks to lose the original term, but language does evolve. > it's time for the current generation to fight for the ideals that -you- believe in. I just don't see the value of the phrase that high. The important thing are the ideals behind it. If a new term needs to be adopted, so be it.
- bruce511 2y ago
  The company in the original post is watering down those ideals. But that's ok because "ideas"? By watering down the words they seek to water down the ideals. Forgive me, but I don't think that's ok.

lloeki 2y ago

> The common phrase for this is "source available" I know! Unfortunately that one doesn't seem to quite catch on beyond open source advocates (see my other nearby comment) > Open Source has a -legal- meaning - in the sense that Open Source Licenses are legal documents which specifically cover what can and can't be done. Does it? As in, is there any law-binding document that universally states what it means? Or has it been ruled anywhere what is or isn't open source? (respecting license terms may have been challenged, that as much is true, but that's about the license contents, not what is or isn't "open source") I may very well be unaware of such a thing existing, and I would be glad to learn there is, but the FSF or OSI or the collective mindhive of hackers (in the jargon file sense; and not saying that derogatorily) or whatever saying "this is what Open Source is", while a powerful community statement, is not particularly law-binding. AIUI even among the proponents they even kind of disagree on what "open source" is and is not. > "Free Speech" doesn't mean what most people think it means. Neither does "Constitutional Right". These, comparatively, are legally defined. > To you, defending the term becomes pedantry. I didn't mean to imply that I was personally thinking it was pedantry, only that it can (and often is) perceived as such. I am very much in favour of using proper terms, but I also recognise that it may not be as useful as one might think to fight the semantic fight in order to properly fight the value fight. > So forgive us please if we hold tightly to what was so hard won. Please, continue to hold tightly! Although sometimes one realises they can't ever hope to convince others they're "wrong", so maybe there are other ways to win... "You can't win, but there are alternatives to fighting." As a believer in and advocate of FOSS, I found it much more effective to battle on the value grounds instead of losing the audience right away, instead reaching out into their level of understanding. More often than not, they end up educating themselves down the road. Kind of a "use the opponent's weight against them" move.

bruce511 2y ago
Open Source is a legal term in the sense that it becomes legal documents, licenses, and those licenses either conform to the OSI definition, or they do not. Sure, you can write anything you like in your license, you can call it Open Source, but if it's not compatible with the OSI definition then it's not compatible with the ideals and values of Open Source. The problem with battling on value grounds, but abandoning the name, allows others to appropriate the name, and from that change the values. I find it egregious that companies get to water down the values - they get to slowly shift perception of what "Open Source" is - and along the way the values get lost. The values were written down. They got given a name. Now commercial interests want to appropriate the name, get the goodwill that comes with the name, but at the same time water down, remove, or alter, the underlying values. I am no FOSS accolyte. My day job is commercial software. The (non-existent) financial model of OSS doesn't work for me. I am -very- happy that licenses of all kinds exist. I am free to choose what programs I use, and what licenses I choose to accept. I am largely a consumer of open source, and a very minor contributor. It is as a -user- not a -developer- that I appreciate what Open Source (and Free) software mean, and I'm not ok with companies appropriating that term to mean "whatever they want".

MyFedora 2y ago

There is no legal meaning behind and no legal protection for the term open source. A proprietary software license can use the term open source in the license and define it as the source code is available. Legal systems don't care about what some random organization like the OSI thinks open source stands for.

bruce511 2y ago
Which is why when a company releases a license that they claim is "Open Source" and it's not compatible with the OSI definition, then we need to stand up and say bullshit. They are welcome to release it any way they like. If they think they can somehow fool developers by calling it Open Source when it isn't, well good for them. If you as a developer want to contribute to, and promote, their product then go for it. But if it's not Open Source then I call bullshit, and don't be surprised when the -Open Source- community gets upset.

amiga386 2y ago

> Open Source has a -legal- meaning I don't think it does, but "open source software as defined by the Open Source Initiative" does have legal meaning. Equally, "free software" does not have a legal meaning either, but "free software as defined by the Free Software Foundation" does. That said, Stallman is probably right, the term "open source" cooked up by Perens et al was language used to mollify business people who feared the term "free software" (and "copyleft"... and Stallman). The term got traction and the popularity of the software greatly increased. But, by using this ambiguous phrase to describe software that you not only have the right to see the source of, but also to modify and redistribute, it opens the door to shysters who would try to claim that "source available" is somehow "open source"... because the "source" is "open".

doix 2y ago

In general, I agree with you. I am annoyed that people use "open source" instead of "source available". But I disagree with: > But you live in a world where you have the access to code that you do, precisely because the older generation stood up for the specifics of the term - and fought for the very freedoms you now enjoy. No, we have access to code because people fought for the "idea", not the word. Words are used to communicate ideas. The important thing is that people understand each other. Right now, the communication is muddled because the term "open source" can be interpreted by someone unfamiliar with the origin of the term as "source available". Yes, it sucks to lose the original term, but language does evolve. > it's time for the current generation to fight for the ideals that -you- believe in. I just don't see the value of the phrase that high. The important thing are the ideals behind it. If a new term needs to be adopted, so be it.

bruce511 2y ago
The company in the original post is watering down those ideals. But that's ok because "ideas"? By watering down the words they seek to water down the ideals. Forgive me, but I don't think that's ok.