3 ms·

I don’t agree it is “revisionist” history. Yes, people used phrases like “open source code” prior to 1998, but without a clear and universally agreed meaning -

I don’t agree it is “revisionist” history. Yes, people used phrases like “open source code” prior to 1998, but without a clear and universally agreed meaning - pre-1998, “open source” could just mean the source code was available under unspecified terms, possibly with significant strings attached (e.g. commercial use requires paid license, no redistribution of modified versions, etc). It was only circa 1998 that “open source” came to clearly mean the Open Source Definition In fact, in a pre-1998 sense, VMS (“Open” or not) had “open source” in that customers could order source listings. Yes we’d now call that something more like “source available” but that category wasn’t clearly distinguished from “open source” back then In any event, go read trade magazines from the early 1990s, you’ll find talk of “open systems” in almost every issue, the phrase “open source” rarely if ever occurs

scripturial 2y ago
You are acting like the term open source has a clearer and more agreed upon meaning than it did back then. Perhaps the idea of a more standard definition has grown, but people still use it confusingly today.
ofrzeta 2y ago
If I remember correctly it was more or less coined as an alternative to "Free Software" which wasn't as industry-compatible. I also remember a lot of discussions (and essays by Stallman) about how Open Source is not Free Software as it lacked the enforcement of freedom that is the GPL.
sim7c00 2y ago
current open-source also has all sorts of strings attached depending on the licences -_-. wanna start that debate really?
prmoustache 2y ago
funny how you move the goal post from 1998 to early 90's. I built my first linux box in 1996 and yes open-things were largely associated with open licenses already so it is no suprise some companies decided to jump on the openwashing wagon early.
- skissane 2y ago
  > funny how you move the goal post from 1998 to early 90's. I didn't "move the goal post from 1998 to early 90's". We are talking about OpenVMS which was given that name in 1992. So the "goal post" has been the early 90s all along. The relevance of 1998 here is that it is after the early 90s. > I built my first linux box in 1996 and yes open-things were largely associated with open licenses already so it is no suprise some companies decided to jump on the openwashing wagon early. Nobody was "openwashing" in 1992

scripturial 2y ago

You are acting like the term open source has a clearer and more agreed upon meaning than it did back then. Perhaps the idea of a more standard definition has grown, but people still use it confusingly today.

ofrzeta 2y ago

If I remember correctly it was more or less coined as an alternative to "Free Software" which wasn't as industry-compatible. I also remember a lot of discussions (and essays by Stallman) about how Open Source is not Free Software as it lacked the enforcement of freedom that is the GPL.

sim7c00 2y ago

current open-source also has all sorts of strings attached depending on the licences -_-. wanna start that debate really?

prmoustache 2y ago

funny how you move the goal post from 1998 to early 90's. I built my first linux box in 1996 and yes open-things were largely associated with open licenses already so it is no suprise some companies decided to jump on the openwashing wagon early.

skissane 2y ago
> funny how you move the goal post from 1998 to early 90's. I didn't "move the goal post from 1998 to early 90's". We are talking about OpenVMS which was given that name in 1992. So the "goal post" has been the early 90s all along. The relevance of 1998 here is that it is after the early 90s. > I built my first linux box in 1996 and yes open-things were largely associated with open licenses already so it is no suprise some companies decided to jump on the openwashing wagon early. Nobody was "openwashing" in 1992