The problem with this viewpoint is that the OSI is not the final arbiter of the English language.
Yes, the OSI has an "official definition" of what constitutes "open source" software, but there is a large group of people in the industry that equate the term "open source" with the concept of the source being available, and nothing more. You can shout "wrong, wrong, wrong!" all you want, but I doubt you are going to change many of those people's minds.
The Free Software Foundation has a similar problem with the term "free software".
The people making the definitions are generally passionate about those definitions (for good reasons, mostly, in my estimation). However, I don't think an approach that starts with "Sorry but you don't get to hijack the term" is going to have a net positive effect. If anything, it will probably have a negative effect.
The OSI is not the final arbiter of the English language, but this definition is long-settled by the vast majority of people who know about software. For example, many governments (including the US) have definitions of "open source software" written into their laws and regulations, and they all basically agree with the OSI definition.
For example, the US Government's "OMB M-16-21: Federal Source Code Policy" defines "Open Source Software (OSS) as: "Software that can be accessed, used, modified, and shared by anyone. OSS is often distributed under licenses that comply with the definition of “Open Source” provided by the Open Source Initiative (https://opensource.org/osd) and/or that meet the definition of “Free Software” provided by the Free Software Foundation (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)." https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb...
We obviously disagree on this point, although "the vast majority of people who know about software" is a fairly vague qualifier.
The fact that many software projects distribute under licenses that comply with the OSI's definition is not particularly relevant to my argument anyway. I'm not talking about people distributing the software, I'm talking about the large number of people I am aware of who think of "open source" strictly as software where the source is available.
The US government examples aren't particularly relevant either. A small number of people make those decisions, and there are legal ramifications for them in how they define things, so I'm not at all surprised that they define the term that way.
As I said elsewhere in the thread, I was not arguing that people who use "open source" as equivalent to "source-available" are right. Mainly I'm arguing that there is still a very large group that see it that way, and that the meaning of the term is far less settled among people who use it than some would like it to be.
It's important to have clear terms for important concepts. If you mean source-available (aka "open box"), use that phrase instead. If you mean open source software, call it open source software. Although I don't think it applies in your case, in my experience many of the people who misuse the term "open source software" (OSS) to identify something that is NOT OSS are expressly trying to deceive. Hopefully we can agree that fraud is not acceptable, and then move on to discuss whether or not this is (intentional) fraud.
The term "open system" was not well-defended years ago. It has a definition, but vendors wanted to redefine it into its opposite. Eventually "every vendor with an open mouth had an open system", making the term "open system" mostly useless. It is reasonable to defend clear definitions of important terms, because otherwise communication breaks down.
I never said that the OSI's definition of "open source" wasn't widely held. My argument is that it isn't the only widely-held definition. And I still don't find the government's use of the OSI definition to be particularly relevant - in terms of there being multiple widely-used definitions. It is just an example of one of them.
> in my experience many of the people who misuse the term "open source software" (OSS) to identify something that is NOT OSS are expressly trying to deceive
It has been my experience that most people who use the term "open source" to refer to source-available software are not trying to deceive anyone (although, I am aware of some examples where that has happened). They just haven't dealt with the legal details, and are mostly unaware that a different large group of people attach a lot more meaning to the term than they do.
They can obviously modify it, or extend it for their own development.
So its clearly not Open Source (and I don't market it as such.)
I haven't found a generally recognizable term for commercial products shipped as source code (with or without pre-compiled binaries.)
I think that term would be useful, to distinguish something that is not Open Source and also not Binary.
Currently we describe it as "all source, no black boxes or dlls." which is a bit wordy.
I would say though that regardless of what some customers may _understand_ Open Source to be, this is not Open Source. As programmers it behoves us to use correct terminology not hide behind "what we think the customer thinks."
As I said, there’s a reason we have the OSD and it’s to avoid these silly conversations in which people try to argue that because a sufficient number of people think that turquoise is blue, that it is therefore blue.
This is a solved problem, it was solved 15 years ago. Nobody working in this industry has any excuse for being unaware of it. We should not be attempting to re-litigate it on every thread ever.
Too many people trying to pass their work off as open source when it’s not are not acting in good faith and are looking to trade off the goodwill of the phrase “open source” for personal profit. I’m going to complain about this, net positive effect be damned.
> Because multiple people are wrong, this makes them right?
If enough people use the term wrong, then that becomes the new definition. c.f. "literally," which can now mean "figuratively." I roll my eyes, but there it is.
Many languages, and especially most subsets of languages in technical use are prescribed; however.
Enough people using literally when they mean figuratively will eventually make literally mean figuratively in casual conversation. But no amount of people saying squid when they mean octopus will make squid mean octopus within the marine biology community.
A marine biologist might reasonably talk about an octopus' tentacles, and understand what other people mean when they talk about those tentacles, even though octopuses actually have "arms" in strict terminology.
Similar friction happens with the word "theory" in science or "proof" in mathematics.
But back to the topic: I think enough people use "open source" in a non-rigorous sense that it's worth leaving room for multiple definitions, versus trying to stamp the non-technical ones out. Marine biologists don't generally go around emphatically saying "they're arms, not tentacles!" (well, maybe some do, but mostly in a good-natured, aware-of-how-silly-it-is sense)
Sorry to have tortured your metaphor so much (:
I'd suggest that forums like this are good at being specific about terminology, and rigorous about its application.
In other words you, and others, may have used Open Source incorrectly in the past, and may learn from this thread so you don't I the future.
Perhaps your analogy would better apply to Open Source versus Free Software. That's more akin to octopus and squid. Open Source to commercial is more like talking about tentacles when describing a whale.
For me, I feel there is some fuzzy line to draw between "some use" and "over-use". For "literally," it seemed to get really bad maybe 10-15 years ago, where literally everyone was literally dying over literally the smallest things, and it has tapered off a bit since then (just my personal experience).
I feel like my eyes start to roll when it is paired with a lack of self-awareness. Using it as though it were for emphasis, but not actually being emphatic — just tacking it on pointlessly.
Now I'm getting flashbacks to the complaints about inserting "like" everywhere, which somehow has managed to, like, find its niche and persist irregardlessly.
Richard Dawkins I think made a very good point on Twitter once: If word usage is new and novel and increases expressiveness, we should keep it. If not, we should try and oppose it. Because we want richer ways of expressing ourselves.
This in response to people using "like" too much. As in "Jane was like ... And then I was like ...". "like" doesn't mean "I said" here. So he was supporting the new usage even though he hated it.
Merging "literally" and "figuratively" reduces our expressiveness. Without context ques and maybe not even then if something outlandish actually happens, you can't be sure what was meant. What's the benefit of ambiguity?
Similarly "open source" has a precise meaning especially if you are a programmer. Lots of disciplines have precise meanings for words that might mean something else to the lay person. We don't change maths and physics to suit the layman. Why should we change the meaning of open source? If you don't like the concept as defined, you can invent your own term! Some people have and we have things like "Copy Left".
You could argue that there is some natural evolution of language, but we are also the only species on earth that has literally (not figuratively) changed the planet. So why not mold our languages too? Why should these people who are sticklers for language give in?
I did not say they were right. Effectively I said a lot of people use the term "open source" differently than you do, and that I didn't think the wording you chose to argue your case was going to be effective.
I understand the frustration.
> This is a solved problem, it was solved 15 years ago
I guess that depends on what problem you are referring to. In my experience, the use of the term "open source" to refer strictly to "source available" software is about as common as it ever has been.
> I’m going to complain about this, net positive effect be damned.
Well that's your choice, but in my opinion by doing so in the way you have in this thread, you are working against the goal of persuading people to use the term in the way you want it to be used.
Anyone familiar with english but unfamiliar with the Open Source concept would just think that open source is "source code available", not that there are all these other constraints applied to it as well.
That doesn't mean nobody ever put the two words together before, only that they did a reasonable job to make it probable that no one could point to it as an established term. The whole idea was to trademark and protect the term, which would have been useless process had they not done their homework.
That fell through because the phrase was too generic, but the whole process was very open and well argued, in my opinion. If you have objections to the term, why did you not put them forward in 1998? It sounds a bit late to argue that the term was hijacked 25 years after the fact.
Here's Caldera using the term "open source" for a specific purpose, to describe their DOS offerings as "source available" in 1996[1], which does not fit the definition of "Open Source". Two years later, according to OSI, Bruce Perens proposed "Open Source" as a replacement term for "Free Software"[2]. The Caldera example is just an easy to find public, widely read announcement which uses the term open source in a common-English sort of way. There are more, especially if you troll around old comp.* newsgroups.
> If you have objections to the term, why did you not put them forward in 1998?
I suppose because I was 12 and just learning C at the time. Though I do recall liking the "Free Software" term better, coupled with the phrase "Free as in freedom, not free as in beer".
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20180402143912/http://www.xent.c...
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20021001164015/http://www.openso...
The use you have found by Caldera, which just had become a Linux company at the time, likely precedes this however. I think that falls under "putting the two words together", as it was not an established term at the time.
There is simply no denying that the people around the OSI and related organizations (there were many, but mostly with people in the same circles) popularized the term and give it a specific meaning. Trying to deduce a historical event by cherry picking newsgroup messages is hard. Better to ask anyone who was around Linux related circles at the time. Being 12 at the time is certainly no guarantee of anything, there are many 12-year-olds that know more than adults, especially at the time when there was such a social explosion from the Internet, and many people were just known by their nicknames.
The situation around open source was really interesting as a social commentary at the time. A lot has been written about the connotations around "free" being problematic in English, but there was so much cultural values around the FSF, and my personal feeling (of which I have no proof) was that it was even more important to find a term that the FSF didn't own, thereby taking control over the discourse around permissionless software development which was just getting started at the time.
It doesn't really matter who defines it as what. What matters is what people mean when they say it.
Most developer just uploaded their project to GitHub and attached a license. If OSI defines some licenses as open-source or not is irrelevant. Legally only the license is binding.
In the end for open source to be open source it should be publicly accessible.
Anything else should be defined in the license as the maintainer/creator wishes.
The only argument against that would be that the term has gained popular usage outside of the open source community and become a generic term. I haven't heard or seen any argument that that should be the case.
We have a legal mechanism for dealing with this situation. They could have trademarked the term "Open Source", but that wouldn't be very open then.
It is in those corporations (listed as Sponsors) interest to have access to vast array of Open Source projects to exploit them commercially without committing to any R&D costs and paying the authors.
I would argue that you have hijacked the "open source" term.
What’s valuable to them is to drive the price of a particular product down to $0, if that will undermine a competitor in an area that the original company has no hope of winning, or if that product being free will cause people to buy more of their product. That is worth a huge amount of money and is something that they are otherwise unable to achieve.
Casual comment. Being capable doesn't mean it makes viable sense to build it on your own and how are you so sure about the "low marginal cost". It never is when you have to build something, anything.
Sometimes they're buying decades worth of debugging/testing
Openness is an important principle and it includes not discriminating against fields of endeavour. Think “open society” not “open jar”.
And if you disagree? Well, then I have some free software to sell you!
> Software developers who have any business sense will tell you that customers presume that open-source is synonymous with source-available.
As a software developer with business sense, I call BS on this made-up “fact”. All true scotsmen agree with me.