Who's definition of definition? Who's definition of uncle? Who's definition of term? Who's definition of trademark? Who's definition of "free for all"? Who's definition of expense?
There is no true absolute definition of anything, there is at best consensus. And yet, somehow, we are able to communicate with each-other.
There isn't really much of a catch 22 here, because there's relatively little good faith debate about the definition of open source actually. The OSI definition exists and it's the definition that is most accepted by the people who use the term. If the amount of disagreement necessary to justify this line of question is "any at all," then there's legitimately no meaningful definition of any word.
By all means, feel free to debate the definition of open source, with the knowledge that technically there is no absolute definition. I will not be participating. All this sort of pedantry serves to do is try to derail valid points. If you want a different definition, pick a different term.
I mean, if you want to argue the point, I live in the US where we have a very large stack of case law that defines the definition of trademark, in which if you violate said trademark cases in a court will occur against you. And if you act belligerent about it, the court will dispatch a guy with a gun. So I recommend asking the guy with the gun (that is the right of the state to be sole arbiter of violence).
Now, as it comes to the term open source, there is a very wide range of accepted behavior that you can get away with when using the term before a guy with a gun shows up and asks you to stop regardless of what you or the OSI says.
Yeah, but that's a pretty U.S. centric point of view. People outside the U.S. may not care about our definition of trademark.
> Now, as it comes to the term open source, there is a very wide range of accepted behavior that you can get away with when using the term before a guy with a gun shows up and asks you to stop regardless of what you or the OSI says.
So the definition of words is defined by if people shoot you if you misuse them? How are we even communicating right now if that's the only way words have any concrete definition?
Also, I may be behind on my knowledge of U.S. law, but I don't think they enforce trademark law by firing squad.
You know, I really feel like this argument is neither here nor there. It's not absolutely true: if a government says Pi is 3.2, I do not think the consensus suddenly would change. Treating governments like they're god-like entities that exist separately from people in society is silly, but it's especially silly in a world where we have more than one of them.
Consensus isn't perfect, but it is legitimately the best we have. It is true that misusing the term "open source" won't result in people with guns knocking on your door, (though frankly, I'm not sure what point that proves given misusing MOST words won't do that either, including words whose definitions are ostensibly the purview of government,) but it is a term that does have the benefit of not one, but multiple organizations trying to push a reasonable definition that upholds what they feel underscores the values of open source.
Because of that, "open source" generally conveys a sense of trust to the average person. It has value. This effort is why Google and others covet using the word "open source" in press releases: the average person may not fully grok the implications of open source licensing and ideals, but they sure do get the gist. Because they've heard of Linux, or The GIMP, or Krita, or OpenOffice.
That's why this is always an important issue. Language lawyering the word open source is extremely important. I understand that VC-funded SaaS companies are upset when people use their software as intended by the open source licenses they use, but they don't get that there is no having your cake and eating it too. There is no magic "license that is open source but also somehow protects my business model". Whenever an ostensibly-open-source piece of software gets rugpulled, it dilutes the term "open source". It's a magic trick, wherein suddenly not only are the users who did nothing wrong put into a weird situation, but also all of the open source contributors got tricked into contributing to a proprietary piece of software, when they absolutely would not have if they knew that was going to happen. (That said, I really do hope this pushback eventually kills the CLA scam.)
(Note: interestingly, there was an article I saw going around that was trying to pull the fool's errand of redefining "rugpull" by trying to quantify if it "counted". This is absurd in my eyes. It's a rugpull because someone was standing on the rug you just pulled. They used and contributed to software under one license, and now it's under another. It doesn't matter if it's "fair" or "necessary". Maybe if being open source isn't so important, they can just stop releasing things as open source to begin with? But that's the rub, because "open source" has immense value for getting your foot in the door, but now when people think "open source" you're gradually training them to think "for how long?" and it will damage legitimate projects that really aren't ever going "closed".)
Since police officers won't come to your house with guns if you misuse the term open source, somebody is going to need to defend it from being diluted if they want it to actually mean something. (And while police officers with guns is pretty scary, the guarantee that I will drop an unhinged 5 paragraph rant at anyone who disagrees with my take on the term "open source" is pretty terrifying, too, I imagine.) The people who use, contribute to and value open source as a concept are the ones who have the biggest incentive to be the gatekeepers of the definition, and gatekeep we shall.
That doesn't mean there is absolutely no room for disagreement on what open source means, but there's a wide gap between good-faith debates about open source ideals and values and "who let you decide what open source means and not my Uncle?".
Some contend that "open source" is confusing to laypeople. I agree, but there is no 100% solution. Terms like "free and open source" and "free software" and "libre" all have their pros and cons. The trouble is that you can't literally consolidate the entire open source definition into a two-word phrase. Also though, it's not fair for the burden of understanding technical jargon like "open source" to fall on laypeople. They should just be able to count on open source as a positive signal of trustworthiness, and the more technical people among us can do the work of trying to defend laypeople from bullshit. This story has fallen apart a little over time (laypeople are more inundated with bullshit than ever before) but still, it is the ideal.
There is no true absolute definition of anything, there is at best consensus. And yet, somehow, we are able to communicate with each-other.
There isn't really much of a catch 22 here, because there's relatively little good faith debate about the definition of open source actually. The OSI definition exists and it's the definition that is most accepted by the people who use the term. If the amount of disagreement necessary to justify this line of question is "any at all," then there's legitimately no meaningful definition of any word.
By all means, feel free to debate the definition of open source, with the knowledge that technically there is no absolute definition. I will not be participating. All this sort of pedantry serves to do is try to derail valid points. If you want a different definition, pick a different term.