News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Alcatel-Lucent releases source for 8th, 9th and 10th editions of Unix. Parent comment

Re:Alcatel-Lucent releases source for 8th, 9th and 10th edit... by ternaryoperator on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @02:20AM (#13983873)
It might to you, but it shouldn't. The definition of open source is not controlled by the OSI; they only organize licenses and certify licenses as OSI-approved. However, you don't need an OSI-approved license to be open source. There are many open source packages that are not under an OSI license--most famously, SQLite.

*edited for clarity and a typo.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Alcatel-Lucent releases source for 8th, 9th and 10th edit... by jle17 on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @08:01AM (#13985220)
You don't need to use an OSI-approved license to be Open Source, but you need to use a license that complies with OSI's Open Source definition. Otherwise, the term would be meaningless.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Alcatel-Lucent releases source for 8th, 9th and 10th edit... by andrewshadura on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @07:02AM (#13984947)
Well, since they invented the term, to a certain degree they do.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Alcatel-Lucent releases source for 8th, 9th and 10th edit... by ternaryoperator on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @09:47PM (#13992251)
They didn't invent the term. The term was invented first. The OSI was founded later. See the OSI's own post on this [1].

A much more detailed discussion of the origin of the term and its initial use appears here [2]. The latter link in particular is interesting reading, because it includes the political dimensions (especiall w.r.t O'Reilly's difficulties with the FSF).

[1] https://opensource.org/history [2] http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch11.html

[ Parent | on HN ]