Re:What’s up with these new not-open source licenses?
by EarlKing on Thursday March 18, 2021 @06:23PM
(#26508156)
> the claim is that "open source" didn't describe anything specific until OSI made it.
Yes, and that claim is wrong. Each of Usenet posts cited in Martin Tournoij's blog make reference to open source (code) in one manner or another... like this one, for example: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.os.linux/06y4cr6wr7o/fZ...
Quoting from the above:
> The GPL and the open source code have made Linux the success that it is.
That post is from 27 February 1993.
I don't think you can seriously continue claiming it didn't mean anything specific.
Re:What’s up with these new not-open source licenses?
by dllthomas on Thursday March 18, 2021 @07:27PM
(#26508672)
Your quote is exactly an example of what the parent describes, so I think you miss their point. It is at best ambiguous, but to me clearly reads as constructed by applying the modifier "open" to the compound noun "source code". Someone talking about red fruit flies hasn't made any reference to red fruit.
I make no claim, here, as to the ultimate disposition of the argument, I just don't like points being missed.
If you were talking about "opening your source code," or developing new versions of your product with "open source code," no one would be confused, or if they were confused, they'd ask a follow up. The claim isn't that "open" and "source" were not words with meanings, the claim is that "open source" didn't describe anything specific until OSI made it. This argument is like complaining that people had windows in their houses before MS Windows.