
Affirmation of the Open Source Definition - ifcologne
https://opensource.org/node/966
======
henryfjordan
> Without this single, standard definition of "open source," software
> development as we know it would not be possible. There is no trust in a
> world where anyone can invent their own definition for open source, and
> without trust there is no community, no collaboration, and no innovation.

Are they saying I can't trust what I read in the license files of a project?
This is beyond hubris...

~~~
Iolaum
The problem is when the readme file (or other marketing speak) says open
source, so people think it's something that gives them the rights that OSI
approved licences give, and then the license file says something else. For
example, MongoDb's SSPL v1 or licenses with the commons clause.

People are free to use whatever license they want. They should own up to it
though instead of trying to paint their license as something else.

------
colechristensen
Definitions don't belong to committees.

"open source" isn't a trademarked or otherwise protected phrase, it does not
belong to the OSI, it is not synonymous with (has an)"open source initiative
Approved License".

Coining a term or being among the first to use it does not mean that term
belongs to you.

There are many people that disagree with the OSI about what "open source"
means, and that is what it takes for a definition.

There is a certain irony in the OSI talking about open source like they own
it.

~~~
colechristensen
Self-replying to nail down what I strongly disagree with:

> _Can I call my program "Open Source" even if I don't use an approved
> license?_

>Please don't do that. If you call it "Open Source" without using an approved
license, you will confuse people. This is not merely a theoretical concern —
we have seen this confusion happen in the past, and it's part of the reason we
have a formal license approval process. See also our page on license
proliferation for why this is a problem.

This is from their FAQ and an example of the OSI _explicitly_ acting like they
own "open source". I am fine with proprietary terms being owned and
controlled, for example "USB". I am not fine with organizations trying to
usurp the language to try to push forward their agenda regardless of their
intentions (and generally I approve of the mission of OSI)

~~~
dragonwriter
> This is from their FAQ and an example of the OSI explicitly acting like they
> own "open source"

No, if they were acting like they owned the term, they’d say “No, and we'll
take coercive action to stop you if you do.”

What they are actually saying is (in short) “Please don't, experience has
shown it causes confusion.”

------
kklimonda
So this is yet another comments thread where I see numerous people not
agreeing with OSI definition of "Open Source" and it got me wondering again,
has there always been such a sentiment, or is it a recent one? I don't recall
seeing it as much even a couple of years ago. Has there been some anti-OSI
movement, and if so is there somewhere I could read about arguments against
OSI? It seems most comments seem to be boiling down to "you are not going to
tell me what I can do" but that's perhaps unfair.

~~~
LamaOfRuin
It's not new.

OSI was spawned as a more business friendly reaction to the "moralizing" of
Richard Stallman and other "Free Software" believers. There will always be
argument over definitional identities, especially of basically philosophical
movements.

------
apexal
I'm proud to see an organization I'm active in, the Rensselaer Center for Open
Source, on this list! Just last week a representative from the OSI came to my
university (RPI) to talk about what it means to be OSI affiliate members.

------
chrisseaton
Isn't this what trademarks are for? If they want to enforce what the meaning
of a term is in a a given domain they could come up with a new term and
trademark it.

~~~
wmf
The term "open source" is not a trademark and at this point it probably cannot
be trademarked by anyone. In uncontroversial cases people are happy to let the
OSI be the arbiter of open sourceness but in controversial cases people tend
to decide that OSI doesn't control the meaning of open source.

~~~
chrisseaton
That's my point. It isn't a trademark. They should come up with something new
that is. 'OSI Approved' would be fine.

~~~
massonpj
The term "open source" can not be trademarked (just like Kilogram can not);
the mark is too "descriptive." The OSI does have trademarks for "OSI Approved
Open Source License", as well of course for its own branding, e.g. the "OSI
Keyhole Logo" and the name "Open Source Initiative."

~~~
chrisseaton
> The OSI does have trademarks for "OSI Approved Open Source License"

So why don't they encourage people to use that then?

Rather than telling people how to use another exiting term with a debated
definition?

------
porpoisely
A noble effort, but futile in my opinion. Trying to get the tech world to
agree on something is like trying to herd cats. It's not going to work. What's
to prevent another organization(s) from "forking" their own definition of open
source. And good luck trying to get the differing major license camps ( MIT,
GNU, etc ) to agree on anything.

------
mindcrime
Count us (Fogbeam Labs) in! The OSD is the de facto definition of Open Source,
and we're proud to back the OSI on this.

------
kazinator
"Open source" is just English words you can look up in a dictionary; it can
mean any number of things.

If we disconnect one end of a field effect transistor, the one opposite to the
"drain", we have an "open source".

~~~
mindcrime
_If we disconnect one end of a field effect transistor, the one opposite to
the "drain", we have an "open source"._

True, but totally irrelevant here.

Context matters.

~~~
kazinator
> _Context matters._

That's actually the point. In the context of software source code, "open
source" still doesn't mean whatever these guys say it means.

Only in the very narrow context of their specific organization and affiliates.

~~~
mindcrime
_Only in the very narrow context of their specific organization and
affiliates._

That's not even close to true. There's a small niche group of people who don't
acknowledge / accept that the OSD is, in every meaningful sense, the
definition of Open Source.

~~~
kazinator
Most people who use "open source" in reference to software have never heard of
OSI or its OSD, and could not recite its detailed points. Their understanding
might not be in _conflict_ with the OSD, but it's not in precise conformance
with it.

For instance, oh, _" The license may restrict source-code from being
distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of
"patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at
build time. "_ Most people, including developers, don't know what a "patch
file" is, so how can this be part of their definition when they use the term
"open source".

Here are much more authoritative definitions, which are far briefer than the
OSD's seven points:

[https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/open-
source](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/open-source)

[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open-source](https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/open-source)

(Both would have us hyphenate the term.)

------
sparkie
"open source" is just two words. "open" and "source", the latter being short
for source code. I hate to break it to you, but language does not work by
having people sign statements to declare that you think certain words can only
be used in certain contexts that you think are worthy of your cause.

The people signing such statements are wasting their time. Their signature
does not, and cannot prevent people from using "open" and "source" together,
to mean something where the source code is open for inspection, if it doesn't
quite fit their over-engineered definition.

"open source" and "OSI approved" are simply not synonymous and hopeful wishing
will never make it so.

~~~
rangerpolitic
Like all symbols (e.g., statues, logos, sounds, buildings, etc.), there is no
innate meaning for words. We are completely free to attach any arbitrary
meaning to a word and use it to convey that meaning. That doesn't mean it is
without problems and that's the case with open source.

The existing community in which open source is used largely understands "open"
to refer to freedom in the broadest means possible. That's the word's
denotative sense. It also carries a strong connotative sense in which it is
viewed as a positive for business and society.

What's happening is that you have a small group of people who desire to
benefit from the connotative sense of the word while changing denotative
sense. That creates problems when they're not clear that they don't mean open
source in the same way that it's understand commonly amongst the technical
community.

It's underhanded and dishonest.

If they want to create a quasi-open source license, that's fine. They simply
should be very clear that it's not open source in the traditional/common
sense.

~~~
zzzcpan
Common meaning behind open source is not actually OSI approved open source and
never was by the way. OSI, for example, rejects public domain, while for
pretty much everyone else public domain is open source. Broad freedom is even
trickier to talk about. FSF, for example, built an entire ideology on the
meaning of freedom.

~~~
type0
Public domain isn't open source, that concept doesn't exist in every country.

