https://opensource.org/license (linking to OSI for the list because it's convenient, not because they get to decide)
Who died and made OSI God?
We've seen people try to deceptively describe non-OSS projects as open source, and no doubt we will continue to see it. Thankfully the community (including Hacker News) is quick to call it out, and to insist on not cheapening the term.
This is one the topics that just keeps turning up:
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24483168
Speak for yourself, please. The term is much older than 1998, with one easily-Googled example being https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000639879.pdf , and an explicit case of IT-related usage being https://i.imgur.com/Nw4is6s.png from https://www.google.com/books/edition/InfoWarCon/09X3Ove9uKgC... .
Unless a registered trademark is involved (spoiler: it's not) no one, whether part of a so-called "community" or not, has any authority to gatekeep or dictate the terms under which a generic phrase like "open source" can be used.
The community has the authority to complain about companies mis-labelling their pork products as vegan, even if nobody has a registered trademark on the term vegan. Would you tell people to shut up about that case because they don't have a registered trademark? Likewise, the community has authority to complain about Meta/Facebook mis-labelling code as open source even when they put restrictions on usage. It's not gate-keeping or dictatorship to complain about being misled or being lied to.
I especially like how I'm the one telling people to "shut up" all of a sudden.
As for the rest, see my other reply.
This whole 'Open Source' thing is a bigger pet peeve than it should be, because I've received criticism for using the term on a page where I literally just posted a .zip file full of source code. The smart thing to do would have been to ignore and forget the criticism, which I will now work harder at doing.
In the case of a pork producer who labels their products as 'vegan', that's different because there is some authority behind the usage of 'vegan'. It's a standard English-language word that according to Merriam-Webster goes back to 1944. So that would amount to an open-and-shut case of false advertising, which I don't think applies here at all.
I don't see the difference. Open source software is a term of art with a specific meaning accepted by its community. When people misuse the term, invariably in such a way as to broaden it to include whatever it is they're pushing, it's right that the community responds harshly.
This kind of argument is literally why trademark law exists. OSI did not elect to go down that path. Maybe they should have, but I respect their decision not to, and perhaps you should, too.
Agreed. There is no trademark on aileron or carburetor or context-free grammar. A couple of years ago I made this same point myself. [0]
> A given term is either an ordinary dictionary word that everyone including the courts will readily recognize ("Vegan"), a trademark ("Microsoft® Office 365™"), or a fragment of language that everyone can feel free to use for their own purposes without asking permission. "Open Source" falls into the latter category.
This taxonomy doesn't hold up.
Again, it's a term of art with a clear meaning accepted by its community. We've seen numerous instances of cynical and deceptive misuse of the term, which the community rightly calls out because it's not fair play, it's deliberate deception.
> This kind of argument is literally why trademark law exists
It is not. Trademark law exists to protect brands, not to clarify terminology.
You seem to be contradicting your earlier point that terms of art do not require licenses.
> OSI did not elect to go down that path. Maybe they should have, but I respect their decision not to, and perhaps you should, too.
I haven't expressed any opinion on that topic, and I don't see a need to.
Come up with a new term and trademark that, and heck, I'll help you out with a legal fund donation when Facebook and friends inevitably try to appropriate it. Apart from that, you've fought the good fight and done what you could. Let it go.
Recently, companies are trying to market things as open source when in reality, they fail to adhere to the definition.
I think we should not let these companies change the meaning of the term, which means it's important to explain every time they try to seem more open than they are.
I'm afraid the battle is being lost though.
It was defined and accepted by the community well before OSI came around though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
> Linus Torvalds, Larry Wall, Brian Behlendorf, Eric Allman, Guido van Rossum, Michael Tiemann, Paul Vixie, Jamie Zawinski, and Eric Raymond [...] > At that meeting, alternatives to the term "free software" were discussed. [...] Raymond argued for "open source. The assembled developers took a vote, and the winner was announced at a press conference the same evening
The original "Open source Definition" was derived from Debian's Social Contract, which did not use the term "open source"
https://web.archive.org/web/20140328095107/http://www.debian...
It's not hard to find earlier examples where the phrase is used to describe enabling and (yes) leveraging community contributions to accomplish things that otherwise wouldn't be practical; see my other post for a couple of those.
But then people will rightfully object that the term "Open Source", when used in a capacity related to journalistic or intelligence-gathering activities, doesn't have anything to do with software licensing. Even if OSI had trademarked the phrase, which they didn't, that shouldn't constrain its use in another context.
To which I'd counter that this statement is equally true when discussing AI models. We are going to have to completely rewire copyright law from the ground up to deal with this. Flame wars over what "Open Source" means or who has the right to use the phrase are going to look completely inconsequential by the time the dust settles.
AI may make copyright obsolete, or it may make copyright more important than ever, but my prediction is that the IT community will lose something of great value if the term "open source" is diluted to include licenses that restrict usage, restrict distribution, and restrict modification. I can understand why people may want to choose somewhat restrictive licenses, just like I can understand why a product may contain gelatin, but I don't like it when the product is mis-labelled as vegan. There are plenty of other terms that could be used, for example, "open" by itself. I'm honestly curious if you would defend a pork product labelled as vegan, or do you just feel that the analogy doesn't apply?
In English, proper nouns are capitalized.
"Open" and "source" are both very normal English words. English speakers have "the right" to use them according to their own perspective and with personal context. It's the difference between referring to a blue tooth, and Bluetooth, or to an apple store or an Apple store.
[0] - https://opensource.org/osd