3 ms·

> Even if we would assume that everything you say is true It's not my blog post, so you don't have to take my word for it. But if you disagree with that post a

> Even if we would assume that everything you say is true It's not my blog post, so you don't have to take my word for it. But if you disagree with that post author's findings, perhaps you could indicate what you disagree with. The post extensively links citations/sources. > does this make it reasonable to claim, today, that we can call something “Open Source” if it isn’t OSI-approved? OSI isn't the boss of me, and I see no reason to let them dictate the meaning of terminology that they didn't invent and don't hold a trademark for. The two main founders of OSI also haven't been involved with it for quite some time, and besides, one of them regularly makes politically-charged comments that I find repulsive. Why exactly are we putting this random small non-profit on a pedestal? Personally, I stick to "source available" when referring to non-OSI licenses, but that's strictly to avoid getting shouted at by people who inexplicably treat the OSD like a holy law from the almighty. I think the industry would be a lot healthier if we avoided these extreme views. > Only weasels try to claim otherwise; i.e. the only people I see doing it are weasels who are trying to defend the indefensible by arguing the definition of words. It sure sounds like you think anyone who disagrees with your point of view is a weasel, even if they have a well-researched reason for the disagreement!

teddyh 2y ago
> The post extensively links citations/sources. Even if there were some usage of “Open Source” prior to the OSI, the OSI announcement and consequent media storm completely obliterated any prior meaning the term might have had. > OSI isn't the boss of me What reason can you have to use the term “Open Source” today to mean something other than what OSI defines, other than to weaselly mislead?
- evanelias 2y ago
  I certainly don't recall a "media storm" about the OSI in 1998, and I was a hobbyist DOS software programmer who was active on BBSes, newsgroups, and web forums at the time. I'm sure it was a bigger deal among the Linux and BSD and Free Software folks, but that was a relatively small niche at the time, compared to the software industry as a whole. In any case, OSI didn't create this term, they were denied a trademark on it, and they didn't actually create any of these licenses. They aren't the government, and they aren't the dictionary. The default state of affairs is to not care about their definition. You need to give reasons why we should care about their arbitrary definition. A "media storm" is just a marketing campaign, and that hardly seems like a good reason for an entire industry to strictly follow something. I'm especially disturbed by how some strict adherents of the OSD seem to go out of their way to attack non-FOSS licenses and the software authors who adopt them. The negative comments on the recent Fair Source threads here seem to indicate that any attempt to adopt non-OSD source-available licensing will be attacked as "open washing", even if the authors don't use the word "open". I don't understand why people feel justified to act as self-appointed Terminology Police on behalf of an arbitrary definition from a random small nonprofit. This is cult-like behavior.
  - teddyh 2y ago
    The OSI announcment was riding the wave of the Netscape source code release announcement, and the wave even grew somewhat. Everybody wanted to talk about this new phenomenon, and now they had a good term to go with it: Open Source. The media coverage, as I recall, was huge. Not an ad campaign; actual media coverage.

teddyh 2y ago

> The post extensively links citations/sources. Even if there were some usage of “Open Source” prior to the OSI, the OSI announcement and consequent media storm completely obliterated any prior meaning the term might have had. > OSI isn't the boss of me What reason can you have to use the term “Open Source” today to mean something other than what OSI defines, other than to weaselly mislead?

evanelias 2y ago
I certainly don't recall a "media storm" about the OSI in 1998, and I was a hobbyist DOS software programmer who was active on BBSes, newsgroups, and web forums at the time. I'm sure it was a bigger deal among the Linux and BSD and Free Software folks, but that was a relatively small niche at the time, compared to the software industry as a whole. In any case, OSI didn't create this term, they were denied a trademark on it, and they didn't actually create any of these licenses. They aren't the government, and they aren't the dictionary. The default state of affairs is to not care about their definition. You need to give reasons why we should care about their arbitrary definition. A "media storm" is just a marketing campaign, and that hardly seems like a good reason for an entire industry to strictly follow something. I'm especially disturbed by how some strict adherents of the OSD seem to go out of their way to attack non-FOSS licenses and the software authors who adopt them. The negative comments on the recent Fair Source threads here seem to indicate that any attempt to adopt non-OSD source-available licensing will be attacked as "open washing", even if the authors don't use the word "open". I don't understand why people feel justified to act as self-appointed Terminology Police on behalf of an arbitrary definition from a random small nonprofit. This is cult-like behavior.
- teddyh 2y ago
  The OSI announcment was riding the wave of the Netscape source code release announcement, and the wave even grew somewhat. Everybody wanted to talk about this new phenomenon, and now they had a good term to go with it: Open Source. The media coverage, as I recall, was huge. Not an ad campaign; actual media coverage.