People show up with their superficially plausible arguments like this one to try and retcon what "open source" means, but there are a few pesky problems.
> Open-source is like a book that can be opened to look inside.
Except every single book that has ever existed also has that property, and you're definitely not calling them "open source". If you did tell someone that a book is "open source" they'd understand you to be saying something else entirely other than that you can look at it.
Sometimes prescriptivism has its merits. The case of "open source" is one of them.
> People show up with their superficially plausible arguments like this one to try and retcon what "open source" means, but there are a few pesky problems.
It's the OSI who are trying to retcon what open source means!
Why do they think they have the right to tell anyone what 'open source' means? They should have used a new term, not taken an existing one.
> They should have used a new term, not taken an existing one.
I think you're trolling, yes? First read: "what a crazy comment", second read: "hmm, might be trolling", third read: "okay, yeah, I get it now… I think". This is a dangerous game.
I don't think the OSI should have taken an existing generic industry term and tried to trademark it and give it a new definition. I think that was a real ethical mistake and it was also a strategic mistake.
I think it would have been better for everyone if they called it OpenFoo (TM) software, or something like that that they came up with themselves and they could legally protect.
Now they're reduced to just trying to complain when people don't look at things their way.
Wow! At first I thought you had found a place where these two words occurred after each other but it seems to have been used a few times I must admit I have been wrong.
It is so nice when someone takes the care to actually provide evidence for their claims.
That said, today I would still say OSIs definition has won and if anyone presented me with code and claimed it was open source and it didn't match OSIs standard then I personally would be disappointed.
But I probably won't claim anymore that they are stealing our term.
Unfortunately most of these seems to be unrelated to software licensing, but I learned a new hack (before:) and also I got another confirmation that Google search results are finally starting to improve after 10 years...!
But that's my point. It already had a different meaning. And I don't think your parsing stands up to what the record says. People who were in the community at the time will tell you for example:
> I joined Caldera in November of 1995, and we certainly used "open source" broadly at that time.
So why didn't they pick something that nobody was using at all? Something they could trademark?
> Insanely dishonest way to characterize this.
Can you explain why you think that? My understanding, from their own documents, is that 'there is virtually no chance that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office would register the mark "open source"; the mark is too descriptive.'
'Open source' is a simple descriptive phrase - it's not something the OSI own, or coined, or have any right to lecture people on.
> 'Open source' is a simple descriptive phrase - it's not something the OSI own, or coined, or have any right to lecture people on.
You're sort of pulling back here—defending it in a different context than the way it was used in the place you first wrote it.
Do you want to take this private? I'll email you. I've been in enough HN flamewars over the last 24 hours, and these types of threads where a few people dominate aren't good and might as well be private, anyway.
* 'open source' was an existing industry term before 1998, with a broadly similar meaning - not exactly the same and that's kind of the point - why pick an existing term and try to give it a new meaning and then claim you invented it?
* 'open source' is a plainly descriptive term, so much so that the even the USPTO told them this and that them trying to trademark it was a nonsense - it's like they tried to claim they invented 'sliced bread' and then wanted to trademark it - it's just an adjective and a noun
With both of these things, I think it's really silly of them to try to tell people that things aren't open source because they don't meet their own pet definition (and they do that - they have come into HN threads and told people off).
You can email me if you want! All my details are in my profile. But it's not my job to convince anyone of anything. I just know why I wouldn't let the OSI lecture me, and I'd recommend other people check the history as well.
> They should have used a new term, not taken an existing one.
False premise. They didn't take "an existing generic industry term" and "give it a new definition". They took an existing definition[1] and tried coming up with a catchy new turn of phrase that they hoped would be adopted in lieu of "free software", and they were wildly successful. So successful that people convince themselves that "open source" must have already been a thing when Christine Peterson suggested it at the meeting where they settled on using it.
> So successful that people convince themselves that "open source" must have already been a thing when Christine Peterson suggested it at the meeting where they settled on using it.
I don't have any great insight that's not in the public record, but from reading that announcement and the other article you linked, observations:
- There are a bunch of references to other folks using the term, all of which are big names I recognize as being pioneers in open source consistent with the OSI's notion of it.
- The mailing list posts enumerate a bunch of advantages that would not follow from mere availability of source code without additional rights consistent with the OSI's general notion.
The sense I get from this is that the term probably was in use already, but it pretty much meant what the OSI says it does, not just "the source is out there."
> Open-source is like a book that can be opened to look inside.
Except every single book that has ever existed also has that property, and you're definitely not calling them "open source". If you did tell someone that a book is "open source" they'd understand you to be saying something else entirely other than that you can look at it.
Sometimes prescriptivism has its merits. The case of "open source" is one of them.