4 ms·

This is a complaint as old as the internet, which probably bears repeating from time to time. One part I think is unnecessarily controversial: > It does not m

This is a complaint as old as the internet, which probably bears repeating from time to time. One part I think is unnecessarily controversial: > It does not mean it is free and open-source (FOSS). This is another old argument that it's pointless to re-litigate, but one should at least note that this way of using the term ‘Open Source’ contradicts the OSI definition and risks causing avoidable misunderstandings. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd

greyface- 2y ago
Trademarks are the legal framework we use to protect phrases like this. In 1999, OSI applied for, and was denied, a trademark on the phrase "Open Source".[1] Perhaps there is a moral argument to be made to this effect, but there is not a legal one. [1]: https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...
- Brian_K_White 2y ago
  Ridiculous. The entire dictionary is nothing but consensus on terms with no trademarks (and from which government?) anywhere. OSI merely presents a definition as a service, for others to have something already thought-out to refer to rather than have to write a 10 page definition every time someone wants to refer to the concept. It is well established by now, and the only people trying to argue about it are simply uneducated or have some deliberate agenda where they somehow benefit from artificially clouding an issue that has already gone through a process of being hashed out and recorded long ago. There is no reason to give them any air.
- robinhouston 2y ago
  I'm not trying to make either a moral or a legal argument, only to warn against using the term in a way that is liable to cause confusion or needless antagonism.
- School-Cotton 2y ago
  > Perhaps there is a moral argument to be made to this effect, but there is not a legal one Nobody was even talking about law until you chimed in. Believe it or not words can mean things in English independent of whether there is a court case establishing that meaning.

greyface- 2y ago

Trademarks are the legal framework we use to protect phrases like this. In 1999, OSI applied for, and was denied, a trademark on the phrase "Open Source".[1] Perhaps there is a moral argument to be made to this effect, but there is not a legal one. [1]: https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...

Brian_K_White 2y ago
Ridiculous. The entire dictionary is nothing but consensus on terms with no trademarks (and from which government?) anywhere. OSI merely presents a definition as a service, for others to have something already thought-out to refer to rather than have to write a 10 page definition every time someone wants to refer to the concept. It is well established by now, and the only people trying to argue about it are simply uneducated or have some deliberate agenda where they somehow benefit from artificially clouding an issue that has already gone through a process of being hashed out and recorded long ago. There is no reason to give them any air.
robinhouston 2y ago
I'm not trying to make either a moral or a legal argument, only to warn against using the term in a way that is liable to cause confusion or needless antagonism.
School-Cotton 2y ago
> Perhaps there is a moral argument to be made to this effect, but there is not a legal one Nobody was even talking about law until you chimed in. Believe it or not words can mean things in English independent of whether there is a court case establishing that meaning.