5 ms·

Why is everyone in this thread ignoring the fact that the world already had this debate 30 years ago, so the OSI published a document clearly specifying what is

Why is everyone in this thread ignoring the fact that the world already had this debate 30 years ago, so the OSI published a document clearly specifying what is and isn't Open Source? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition It doesn't say anything about collaborative development.

JimDabell 5mo ago
I’m well aware of the OSD, but we are talking about social norms, not distribution terms. Direct from the OSI: > The conferees believed the pragmatic, business-case grounds that had motivated Netscape to release their code illustrated a valuable way to engage with potential software users and developers, and convince them to create and improve source code by participating in an engaged community. The conferees also believed that it would be useful to have a single label that identified this approach and distinguished it from the philosophically- and politically-focused label “free software.” Brainstorming for this new label eventually converged on the term “open source”, originally suggested by Christine Peterson. — https://opensource.org/about/history-of-the-open-source-initiative https://opensource.org/about/history-of-the-open-source-init... “Participating in an engaged community” has been an intrinsic part of Open Source from the beginning.
- engeljohnb 5mo ago
  It's so fundamental they didn't include it in the definition? >Open source is not merely a license choice. Yes it is. The OSD only deals with licenses, therefore whether a software has a "community" has no bearing on whether it's open source. You're claiming the terms laid out in the OSD were motivated by hopes of cultivating a community, but the reasons behind the document are immaterial to this discussion. It only matters how "open source" is defined, and it's plainly not defined by the presence of any community.
  - JimDabell 5mo ago
    > You're claiming the terms laid out in the OSD were motivated by hopes of cultivating a community I didn’t say that. I didn’t bring up the OSD at all. In fact I was explicitly talking about a broader concept than simply license terms from my very first sentence. You were the one that started talking about the OSD. > It only matters how "open source" is defined, and it's plainly not defined by the presence of any community. The OSD defines criteria by which software licenses can be considered open source. It doesn’t define the movement as a whole.
    - engeljohnb 5mo ago
      >> You're claiming the terms laid out in the OSD were motivated by hopes of cultivating a community. > I didn’t say that. If you don't think the statement's true, then what exactly is the meaning of this passage, and what was your purpose in quoting it? > ... and convince them to create and improve source code by participating in an engaged community. The thesis of the post is that publishing Open Source software doesn't carry an obligation of maintaining a community. To determine if that's true, what software counts as open source is relevant information. Anything to do with the "movement" isn't. Your original comment started with the words "Open Source is..." If there's an authoritative document specifying exactly what Open Source is, and it plainly contradicts what you say, then you're wrong. > Open source is not merely a license choice. > The OSD defines criteria by which software licenses can be considered open source. These two statements are exactly contradictory.
      - JimDabell 5mo ago
        > > >> You're claiming the terms laid out in the OSD were motivated by hopes of cultivating a community. > > I didn’t say that. > If you don't think the statement's true I didn’t say that either. Is it really so difficult for you to respond to what I actually say? I am talking about cultural norms. You are trying to cram what I am saying into something that is purely about license terms. I am repeatedly telling you that I am not talking about license terms and you are repeatedly ignoring that. > If there's an authoritative document specifying exactly what Open Source is, and it plainly contradicts what you say, then you're wrong. Again, the OSD defines criteria for licenses, it does not define the movement as a whole. I am talking about the movement, not license terms. If you are unwilling to engage with that point, then don’t. But stop mischaracterising what I am saying. > > Open source is not merely a license choice. > > The OSD defines criteria by which software licenses can be considered open source. > These two statements are exactly contradictory. They are not. Every time I say “Open Source” you are reading “OSD” but I am repeatedly telling you I am talking about the movement, not the OSD that talks about license terms.
- rpdillon 5mo ago
  I talked to Simon Phipps about this back in the mid-2000s, so I understand where you're coming from, even if I disagree. I'm curious whether you classify chromium, AOSP, or sqlite as open source.
  - JimDabell 5mo ago
    > I'm curious whether you classify chromium, AOSP, or sqlite as open source. They are open source software, but they aren’t following the social norms of the open source movement. They are within their rights to develop as they see fit and label their software as open source software, but it’s also reasonable for people to have different expectations and to be surprised when these projects do not collaborate with the public.
throwawaypath 5mo ago
[flagged]
throwawaypath 5mo ago
[flagged]

JimDabell 5mo ago

I’m well aware of the OSD, but we are talking about social norms, not distribution terms. Direct from the OSI: > The conferees believed the pragmatic, business-case grounds that had motivated Netscape to release their code illustrated a valuable way to engage with potential software users and developers, and convince them to create and improve source code by participating in an engaged community. The conferees also believed that it would be useful to have a single label that identified this approach and distinguished it from the philosophically- and politically-focused label “free software.” Brainstorming for this new label eventually converged on the term “open source”, originally suggested by Christine Peterson. — https://opensource.org/about/history-of-the-open-source-initiative https://opensource.org/about/history-of-the-open-source-init... “Participating in an engaged community” has been an intrinsic part of Open Source from the beginning.

engeljohnb 5mo ago
It's so fundamental they didn't include it in the definition? >Open source is not merely a license choice. Yes it is. The OSD only deals with licenses, therefore whether a software has a "community" has no bearing on whether it's open source. You're claiming the terms laid out in the OSD were motivated by hopes of cultivating a community, but the reasons behind the document are immaterial to this discussion. It only matters how "open source" is defined, and it's plainly not defined by the presence of any community.
- JimDabell 5mo ago
  > You're claiming the terms laid out in the OSD were motivated by hopes of cultivating a community I didn’t say that. I didn’t bring up the OSD at all. In fact I was explicitly talking about a broader concept than simply license terms from my very first sentence. You were the one that started talking about the OSD. > It only matters how "open source" is defined, and it's plainly not defined by the presence of any community. The OSD defines criteria by which software licenses can be considered open source. It doesn’t define the movement as a whole.
  - engeljohnb 5mo ago
    >> You're claiming the terms laid out in the OSD were motivated by hopes of cultivating a community. > I didn’t say that. If you don't think the statement's true, then what exactly is the meaning of this passage, and what was your purpose in quoting it? > ... and convince them to create and improve source code by participating in an engaged community. The thesis of the post is that publishing Open Source software doesn't carry an obligation of maintaining a community. To determine if that's true, what software counts as open source is relevant information. Anything to do with the "movement" isn't. Your original comment started with the words "Open Source is..." If there's an authoritative document specifying exactly what Open Source is, and it plainly contradicts what you say, then you're wrong. > Open source is not merely a license choice. > The OSD defines criteria by which software licenses can be considered open source. These two statements are exactly contradictory.
    - JimDabell 5mo ago
      > > >> You're claiming the terms laid out in the OSD were motivated by hopes of cultivating a community. > > I didn’t say that. > If you don't think the statement's true I didn’t say that either. Is it really so difficult for you to respond to what I actually say? I am talking about cultural norms. You are trying to cram what I am saying into something that is purely about license terms. I am repeatedly telling you that I am not talking about license terms and you are repeatedly ignoring that. > If there's an authoritative document specifying exactly what Open Source is, and it plainly contradicts what you say, then you're wrong. Again, the OSD defines criteria for licenses, it does not define the movement as a whole. I am talking about the movement, not license terms. If you are unwilling to engage with that point, then don’t. But stop mischaracterising what I am saying. > > Open source is not merely a license choice. > > The OSD defines criteria by which software licenses can be considered open source. > These two statements are exactly contradictory. They are not. Every time I say “Open Source” you are reading “OSD” but I am repeatedly telling you I am talking about the movement, not the OSD that talks about license terms.
rpdillon 5mo ago
I talked to Simon Phipps about this back in the mid-2000s, so I understand where you're coming from, even if I disagree. I'm curious whether you classify chromium, AOSP, or sqlite as open source.
- JimDabell 5mo ago
  > I'm curious whether you classify chromium, AOSP, or sqlite as open source. They are open source software, but they aren’t following the social norms of the open source movement. They are within their rights to develop as they see fit and label their software as open source software, but it’s also reasonable for people to have different expectations and to be surprised when these projects do not collaborate with the public.

throwawaypath 5mo ago

[flagged]

throwawaypath 5mo ago

[flagged]