> 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."
> 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.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guideline...