No organization can strictly define "open source" except to say which definition they use. A more valid way to approach the issue is to point out that a license is or is not not approved by the OSI, the FSF, or some other person or group. "Open source" has always been and will always be as fuzzy a term as "the Metaverse" and "handsome".
For most developers and even a fair number of users open source isn't a fuzzy concept but a very concrete technical term describing a very particular kind of license.
Being under an open source license can provide a huge boost to a project or product. As such it is a powerful marketing tool and companies try to exploit that by systematically undermining the the most widespread definition of open source.
The danger of course being that we end up with a term as nebulous as Metaverse.
I would even go further and argue that we should cement that definition into law, i.e. you can't call a product open source if it hasn't an approved open source license. The EU has created precedent for that by protecting the names of certain foods and beverages with regard to their origin, manufacturing and characteristics, because it's an area that faces many of the same issues.
I am aware of the history of the term and how it was taken up and popularized by the OSI. It has served an important and useful purpose. That said, they can't camp on a general purpose term. It isn't like "Champagne", which is a region with ~clear boundaries.
It wasn't a general purpose term when it was coined. That only occurred later, as companies jumped on the bandwagon while not actually permitting the user freedoms that are goal of open source software.
(There's a side argument of whether "Champagne" should be a protected term. The physical region has clear boundaries, but that doesn't mean that the beverage should be defined in terms of the region. If I am opening a combination diner/antique shop, I may advertise it as "Hamburgers and China", even if I am neither near Hamburg nor China. I do not need to follow the lead on calling champagne "sparkling wine" and name my ill-conceived business venture "Ground Beef Patties and Exquisite Ceramics".)
"For most developers and even a fair number of users open source isn't a fuzzy concept but a very concrete technical term describing a very particular kind of license. "
A particular kind, yes. The OSI definition? I'd want to see something that showed objectively that this is what people think. I saw some projects I support come under fire for not being open source recently- I've been. a user and supporter of FOSS software for a long time. I didn't realize that making exclusions on who can use your software wasn't open source. If a developer doesn't want their code used in a weapons system, it doesn't meet the OSI definition.
I know it now, but then I think that leaves the software to use a term that's much less accurate. I don't think that happens because they have a profit motive and want to exploit the term open source. In fact I've seen licenses that are essentially open source except they try to stop people from making a bunch of money off of community work, including those currently controlling the project.
I spent half of my life around Open Source and Free Software. The only cases where people questioned the OSD definition of "Open Source" I've ever seen were either projects that wanted to benefit from the positive clout the term has gained over years without actually doing their part in return, or people who were clearly confused on what this term actually means (usually in relation to Free Software), tried to explain it to someone else and when pointed out they're wrong they didn't want to admit their mistake and went "but OSI can't dictate what this term means". Never seen it used differently in an actual, honest and informed way anywhere that matters.
I didn't realize that making exclusions on who can use your software wasn't open source.
Really? How? Isn't that incredibly obvious? If my license says "this software can only be used by Jane Doe from Boston", is it FLOSS? Or even "only by people who pay me $2000 every month for using it"? After all, it's just a (large) exclusion on who can use my software.
If a license tries to stop people from making money, it's clearly not "essentially open source" in its very nature. In its essence, "open source" means "everyone can use it, and no limitations can be placed other than this particular set of acceptable restrictions". How can you expect that placing additional arbitrary restrictions still gives you the right to call your thing "open source"?
"Isn't that incredibly obvious? " I just asserted that it is not. That was my entire point. I'm not sure how you missed it.
Your assertion that everyone who doesn't agree with you is a liar is problematic. I recommend really thinking about it and the ramifications. You are saying millions of people all agree with you or they are dishonest. Or possibly confused and they will agree with you when the confusion is cleared (unless they are dishonest). I can say I am not convinced and I'm not a liar or a person who is defensive and embarrassed by my not knowing this previously.
I was not aware of this provision that the software must be available for any use until this year (I've been using/involved with FOSS software for about 22 years - unfortunately a good number of years less than half my life) and it didn't occur to me as being necessary because to me saying something like, "this is open source except for military use" or "this is open source for non-profits" seems just as reasonable as "you can't modify this code and distribute binaries unless you distribute that new code". For people willing to agree to the terms, it is open. For the people unwilling to agree it is not.
I've never been really involved on the legal end of it all. In business contexts I used whatever was approved and the personal projects I've done, I've always used an MIT license because it was the easiest for me to understand.
I found out about this on github when I saw some issues opened on a project, because it was described as open source but the license didn't fit the OSI description. I found it to be interesting but also disappointing because it seems to be an issue of "comply or be attacked". There were links about why the vitriol was justified, but I read through it all and wasn't persuaded that the anger directed at the project owner was appropriate.
A license by its very nature restricts things. It's just a matter of which things and I think there is room in this space to be a good actor and have a different opinion. As the GPL says, "To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions..."
I don't see a long chain from "I don't want anyone to keep you from reading and modifying this code" to "I don't want someone to use this code to create an environment that takes away the human rights necessary to read and modify this code".
The fallback position I've seen is the one repeated here - "Everyone already knows and agrees with this except bad actors." and I just doubt that's true. Too many people make software and it's too large a group for me to take at face value any claims regarding a majority understanding. I'd want to see something objective that shows the work was done to know this rather than it just being an opinion or reflective of anecdotal evidence.
I did not. I just fail to see how it isn't obvious to anyone who gives two thoughts about how the term "open source" is being used, so I wanted you to explain it.
For people willing to agree to the terms, it is open. For the people unwilling to agree it is not.
I'm sorry, but this doesn't make any logical sense. You can easily extend that to "for a person willing to buy the copyright from me, it's open; for a person unwilling or too late to buy it is not". How many people can you exclude until such a license stops being "open" in your book? This approach dilutes the meaning of the term so much that it completely ceases to be useful. I honestly can't understand how does that make any sense to you.
Your assertion that everyone who doesn't agree with you is a liar is problematic.
That's not my assertion. If I saw entire communities using the term in conflicting ways, we would be having a completely different discussion. That's not the case though, the flamewars were always being fought in the exact opposite direction by people who perceived copyleft as "not open enough" (and even they usually didn't contest the meaning of the term, just argued about their own stance). In my experience, "Open Source" has always meant what OSI has defined, to the point that I don't even see it as being actually defined by OSI, but rather that OSI has written down the meaning that was already agreed on in practice (it's heavily based on DFSG after all). It wasn't until relatively recently that some projects started to claim being "open source" despite of not actually matching the definition. The benefit for them from doing so is obvious, and when they argue for the definition to become broader this is clearly a classic conflict of interest. I can't agree to that, because this dilutes the meaning of almost two decades of my work. Go use another term, this one's already taken.
A license by its very nature restricts things.
That's absolutely not true. In many jurisdictions, a license is pretty much the only tool you can use to unrestrict things, the only alternative usually being a Public Domain dedication (which isn't even available at all in some parts of the world). By default, all your rights are reserved and nobody can use your software unless you give them an (explicit or implicit) license. Open Source licenses are meant to unrestrict your code as much as possible, only allowing some specific kinds of restrictions that are meant to protect the unrestricted nature of your code and to give you attribution for your work. That's it, that's the universally agreed meaning that was in use for a very long time now. You can't get to restrict arbitrary things on top of that and still call it open. Sure, you can argue that your particular ideas for restrictions are also meant to protect people's rights, but to make it actually accepted as "Open Source" you would have to convince the community (not just OSI!) to reach consensus that this can, in fact, still be called Open Source. And that's clearly not what's happening, so if you continue to use this term in the wrong way, I can't see it as anything else than being malicious.
I have no problem with talking about Tesla cars; nobody argues that we should be talking about Nikolai Tesla's personal car, or a car down the street that somebody spraypainted the word "Tesla" on.
The closest thing to an authority on what is open source is OSI. Open Source doesn't have a fuzzy definition, except where people would like the definition widened to fit their marketing needs.
Why do we need an authority? When I first heard 'open source' I thought it meant that the source code was open access, I would imagine most people don't put much more thought into it until they see one of these debates on use of the term.
People incorrectly using terms they've heard other people throw around is not a new phenomenon. So your "When I first heard [$TECHNICAL_TERM_FOO] I thought it meant [$BLAH]" is not a compelling argument. The fact that people who are uneducated about something don't understand it very well is not a surprising outcome. It is the expected outcome.
Lots of people think that "public domain" means something other than what it does mean. (Coincidentally, the most common misunderstanding arises from an assumption that it means something very similar to if not exactly the same as what you thought of "open source".) And yet, its actual definition remains in effect.
Comments
No organization can strictly define "open source" except to say which definition they use. A more valid way to approach the issue is to point out that a license is or is not not approved by the OSI, the FSF, or some other person or group. "Open source" has always been and will always be as fuzzy a term as "the Metaverse" and "handsome".
For most developers and even a fair number of users open source isn't a fuzzy concept but a very concrete technical term describing a very particular kind of license. Being under an open source license can provide a huge boost to a project or product. As such it is a powerful marketing tool and companies try to exploit that by systematically undermining the the most widespread definition of open source. The danger of course being that we end up with a term as nebulous as Metaverse. I would even go further and argue that we should cement that definition into law, i.e. you can't call a product open source if it hasn't an approved open source license. The EU has created precedent for that by protecting the names of certain foods and beverages with regard to their origin, manufacturing and characteristics, because it's an area that faces many of the same issues.
I am aware of the history of the term and how it was taken up and popularized by the OSI. It has served an important and useful purpose. That said, they can't camp on a general purpose term. It isn't like "Champagne", which is a region with ~clear boundaries.
It wasn't a general purpose term when it was coined. That only occurred later, as companies jumped on the bandwagon while not actually permitting the user freedoms that are goal of open source software.
(There's a side argument of whether "Champagne" should be a protected term. The physical region has clear boundaries, but that doesn't mean that the beverage should be defined in terms of the region. If I am opening a combination diner/antique shop, I may advertise it as "Hamburgers and China", even if I am neither near Hamburg nor China. I do not need to follow the lead on calling champagne "sparkling wine" and name my ill-conceived business venture "Ground Beef Patties and Exquisite Ceramics".)
Another comment claims the term was used way before in the 80’s to simply denote ‘source available’; the OSI was founded in the late 90’s.
"For most developers and even a fair number of users open source isn't a fuzzy concept but a very concrete technical term describing a very particular kind of license. "
A particular kind, yes. The OSI definition? I'd want to see something that showed objectively that this is what people think. I saw some projects I support come under fire for not being open source recently- I've been. a user and supporter of FOSS software for a long time. I didn't realize that making exclusions on who can use your software wasn't open source. If a developer doesn't want their code used in a weapons system, it doesn't meet the OSI definition.
I know it now, but then I think that leaves the software to use a term that's much less accurate. I don't think that happens because they have a profit motive and want to exploit the term open source. In fact I've seen licenses that are essentially open source except they try to stop people from making a bunch of money off of community work, including those currently controlling the project.
I spent half of my life around Open Source and Free Software. The only cases where people questioned the OSD definition of "Open Source" I've ever seen were either projects that wanted to benefit from the positive clout the term has gained over years without actually doing their part in return, or people who were clearly confused on what this term actually means (usually in relation to Free Software), tried to explain it to someone else and when pointed out they're wrong they didn't want to admit their mistake and went "but OSI can't dictate what this term means". Never seen it used differently in an actual, honest and informed way anywhere that matters.
Really? How? Isn't that incredibly obvious? If my license says "this software can only be used by Jane Doe from Boston", is it FLOSS? Or even "only by people who pay me $2000 every month for using it"? After all, it's just a (large) exclusion on who can use my software.
If a license tries to stop people from making money, it's clearly not "essentially open source" in its very nature. In its essence, "open source" means "everyone can use it, and no limitations can be placed other than this particular set of acceptable restrictions". How can you expect that placing additional arbitrary restrictions still gives you the right to call your thing "open source"?
"Isn't that incredibly obvious? " I just asserted that it is not. That was my entire point. I'm not sure how you missed it.
Your assertion that everyone who doesn't agree with you is a liar is problematic. I recommend really thinking about it and the ramifications. You are saying millions of people all agree with you or they are dishonest. Or possibly confused and they will agree with you when the confusion is cleared (unless they are dishonest). I can say I am not convinced and I'm not a liar or a person who is defensive and embarrassed by my not knowing this previously.
I was not aware of this provision that the software must be available for any use until this year (I've been using/involved with FOSS software for about 22 years - unfortunately a good number of years less than half my life) and it didn't occur to me as being necessary because to me saying something like, "this is open source except for military use" or "this is open source for non-profits" seems just as reasonable as "you can't modify this code and distribute binaries unless you distribute that new code". For people willing to agree to the terms, it is open. For the people unwilling to agree it is not.
I've never been really involved on the legal end of it all. In business contexts I used whatever was approved and the personal projects I've done, I've always used an MIT license because it was the easiest for me to understand.
I found out about this on github when I saw some issues opened on a project, because it was described as open source but the license didn't fit the OSI description. I found it to be interesting but also disappointing because it seems to be an issue of "comply or be attacked". There were links about why the vitriol was justified, but I read through it all and wasn't persuaded that the anger directed at the project owner was appropriate.
A license by its very nature restricts things. It's just a matter of which things and I think there is room in this space to be a good actor and have a different opinion. As the GPL says, "To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions..."
I don't see a long chain from "I don't want anyone to keep you from reading and modifying this code" to "I don't want someone to use this code to create an environment that takes away the human rights necessary to read and modify this code".
The fallback position I've seen is the one repeated here - "Everyone already knows and agrees with this except bad actors." and I just doubt that's true. Too many people make software and it's too large a group for me to take at face value any claims regarding a majority understanding. I'd want to see something objective that shows the work was done to know this rather than it just being an opinion or reflective of anecdotal evidence.
I did not. I just fail to see how it isn't obvious to anyone who gives two thoughts about how the term "open source" is being used, so I wanted you to explain it.
I'm sorry, but this doesn't make any logical sense. You can easily extend that to "for a person willing to buy the copyright from me, it's open; for a person unwilling or too late to buy it is not". How many people can you exclude until such a license stops being "open" in your book? This approach dilutes the meaning of the term so much that it completely ceases to be useful. I honestly can't understand how does that make any sense to you.
That's not my assertion. If I saw entire communities using the term in conflicting ways, we would be having a completely different discussion. That's not the case though, the flamewars were always being fought in the exact opposite direction by people who perceived copyleft as "not open enough" (and even they usually didn't contest the meaning of the term, just argued about their own stance). In my experience, "Open Source" has always meant what OSI has defined, to the point that I don't even see it as being actually defined by OSI, but rather that OSI has written down the meaning that was already agreed on in practice (it's heavily based on DFSG after all). It wasn't until relatively recently that some projects started to claim being "open source" despite of not actually matching the definition. The benefit for them from doing so is obvious, and when they argue for the definition to become broader this is clearly a classic conflict of interest. I can't agree to that, because this dilutes the meaning of almost two decades of my work. Go use another term, this one's already taken.
That's absolutely not true. In many jurisdictions, a license is pretty much the only tool you can use to unrestrict things, the only alternative usually being a Public Domain dedication (which isn't even available at all in some parts of the world). By default, all your rights are reserved and nobody can use your software unless you give them an (explicit or implicit) license. Open Source licenses are meant to unrestrict your code as much as possible, only allowing some specific kinds of restrictions that are meant to protect the unrestricted nature of your code and to give you attribution for your work. That's it, that's the universally agreed meaning that was in use for a very long time now. You can't get to restrict arbitrary things on top of that and still call it open. Sure, you can argue that your particular ideas for restrictions are also meant to protect people's rights, but to make it actually accepted as "Open Source" you would have to convince the community (not just OSI!) to reach consensus that this can, in fact, still be called Open Source. And that's clearly not what's happening, so if you continue to use this term in the wrong way, I can't see it as anything else than being malicious.
I can respect your opinion but we'll just have to disagree. I appreciate you taking the time to explain your position.
Why is this "more valid"?
I have no problem with talking about Tesla cars; nobody argues that we should be talking about Nikolai Tesla's personal car, or a car down the street that somebody spraypainted the word "Tesla" on.
The closest thing to an authority on what is open source is OSI. Open Source doesn't have a fuzzy definition, except where people would like the definition widened to fit their marketing needs.
Why do we need an authority? When I first heard 'open source' I thought it meant that the source code was open access, I would imagine most people don't put much more thought into it until they see one of these debates on use of the term.
People incorrectly using terms they've heard other people throw around is not a new phenomenon. So your "When I first heard [$TECHNICAL_TERM_FOO] I thought it meant [$BLAH]" is not a compelling argument. The fact that people who are uneducated about something don't understand it very well is not a surprising outcome. It is the expected outcome.
Lots of people think that "public domain" means something other than what it does mean. (Coincidentally, the most common misunderstanding arises from an assumption that it means something very similar to if not exactly the same as what you thought of "open source".) And yet, its actual definition remains in effect.