3 ms·
Yes, there's some confusion because the term "open source" was around before OSI attempted to define it. If my understanding is correct, the TrueCrypt develope
by flomo 12y ago
Yes, there's some confusion because the term "open source" was around before OSI attempted to define it.
If my understanding is correct, the TrueCrypt developers were attempting to make an "OpenSource(tm)" license, but the OSI folks had some technical objections. So the software falls into a gray area where it's not quite officially OpenSource, but it still could be modified and distributed by third parties.
- jordigh 12y ago> Yes, there's some confusion because the term "open source" was around before OSI attempted to define it. No, it was not. OSI coined it. Specifically, Christine Petersen coined it. It appears to be such a natural term now that we have become convinced that we were using it before OSI, but we weren't. The earliest OED citation for "open source" is from 1998, around the time when OSI coined it. If you have an earlier citation, please submit it to the OED. I don't believe one exists. There is an unrelated term "open source intelligence" which is indeed older, but nobody called software "open source" before OSI.
- flomo 12y agoSorry, no reference. But I recall the term was not eligible for a trademark for some reason.
- jordigh 12y agoI don't know why Bruce Perens apparently trademarked a bunch of things but not "open source" itself. However, as part of its trademark policy, OSI asks that people do not call software "open source" if it's not under an OSI-approved license: http://opensource.org/trademark-guidelines#Usage_That_Does_Not_Require_Permission http://opensource.org/trademark-guidelines#Usage_That_Does_N...
- pbhjpbhj 12y ago"open source" is descriptive (even if you capitalise it). Descriptions aren't trademarks; that's probably why.