The central thesis of your comment, which also mirrors an oblique side remark from the article, is a total fabrication.
OSI did not commandeer the phrase "open source". OSI coined "open source".
OSI did not commandeer the phrase "open source". OSI coined "open source".
English-speakers combining those two to produce the intuitive way ("you can see the source code") gives us our present situation.
Both the comment and the article make a very specific claim about the term "open source": the (frequently encountered) falsehood that the term "open source" preceded OSI, and that the OSI made it their prerogative to wrench it from the mouths (keyboards) of programmers so as to suit the OSI's desires. Not only is that not true, it doesn't seem to be accompanied by any appreciation of the irony involved here, considering that the exact opposite thing is what's actually going on—by the folks who are complaining about retconning language!
Christine Patterson, who proposed "open source" at the freeware summit, has written that she mentioned it to a friend in marketing at the time, and the friend advised against. "Open" was too played out, meant everything and nothing.
How many times are the goalposts going to move in this conversation?
> Christine Patterson
Peterson.
On "open", see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Software_Foundation
https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...
"Open" wasn't greenfield. "Open" was a marketing buzzword in computing all through the eighties.
If you'd like to send a counter-argument, I'd be happy to read it. If you'd prefer to play referee, I've no interest.
The first, strong-but-indefensible claim is made—the one that argues "open source" was in play and that there was some "original" meaning that predates OSI and their attempt to co-opt the term.
This is disputed.
We then see a retreat from out of the bailey into the motte, where we appeal to the "intuitive" understanding (presumably first mover now doesn't matter). Later we're back somewhere in between, except this time musing that perhaps "open" didn't mean anything at the time the Foresight group decided to embroider "open source" on their crest.
In summary, the only thing we've seen is a bad argument that was subsequently vacated, leaving a void in its place plus nothing more substantial than vague suggestions that some other arguments exist that can quash OSI's stake in the term "open source".
So you'll have to forgive me if I haven't yet responded with a counter-argument that requires guessing what claims your mercurial stance is going to have you calling for me to take down next without you actually going through the effort of arguing them in the first place—and thus pinning them down into a form that can actually be squared. Are you able to commit to laying out what you actually believe here and your rationale for why it's valid line of thought?
In other words, if you want to hear a counter argument, you're going to first need to articulate the initial argument that you expect to be countered—preferably in the form of complete sentences that can be read as a deductive play-by-play, each point following from the last, rather than non-sequiturs appealing to incompatible values and adhering to no common goal besides opposition to OSI.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.os.ms-windows.pro...
http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html
Especially that Caldera announcement for OpenDOS seems fairly high-profile.
I'm not suggesting that Christine Peterson is lying when she claims to have coined "Open Source"; it could be coined independently on several occasions, or perhaps she had seen the term but merely forgot about it.
Even if OSI would have coined the term, that still wouldn't mean they should be in 100% control of all usage of it. That's not how language works.
"Open source" probably got coined/invented multiple times independently, which is not surprising since "open" was very common as well, or perhaps the OSI folks simply forgot they heard it before (human memory is not very good).