Are you really going to claim that no one has ever used the generic term "open source" prior to the folks in the OSI?
You can read the history at http://www.opensource.org/history. I wasn't at the meeting, but I was part of the community for years before that, and I was part of the email exchange that followed that led up to the formation of the OSI. Although I'm no fan of ESR, I can attest that the OSI folks' claim to have invented the term is legitimate and correct.
If you want to claim that OSI popularized the phrase and imbued it with a very specific meaning, you'd probably have a point, but I don't see how they could lay claim to ownership of such a generic term. At the very least it seems out of bounds to be accusing someone of being "dishonest" about it and "rewriting history".
Yet digging through Usenet, web, and mailing-list archives has not, so far, found a single example of anyone making that leap prior to the 1998 meeting.
Here's another one: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.protocols.ibm/browse_thr...
Frankly, it really is just baffling to me that you are defending this so aggressively to the point of accusing others of outright dishonesty when discussing it. Do you really think that appropriate?
That one is interesting. The most plausible interpretation is that it is actually a counterexample! He very likely means "source code" and not, say, "FTP site".
> Frankly, it really is just baffling to me that you are defending this so aggressively to the point of accusing others of outright dishonesty when discussing it. Do you really think that appropriate?
Yes. It's like "pro-choice" or like "organic farming": one group of people is using this term with a specific idiomatic meaning, and there are other people who want to associate themselves with that meaning in order to free-ride off the goodwill that comes with it, but without paying the price. An anti-abortion politician isn't "pro-choice" because they support school vouchers, an apricot sprayed with malathion isn't "organic" because it contains carbon compounds, and a free-for-noncommercial-use program isn't "open-source" because its source code isn't secret.
Ah, come on! You can't be serious.
"Source" in "Open Source" is short for "source code", and no other meaning of the word "source". The history page you link doesn't state it explicitly, but they do mention "source code" a few times, in addition to mentioning no other meaning of the word "source", so I think it's pretty reasonably to assume that these OSI people, like many programmers, when speaking about "source" were using it as a short for "source code".
Because really, a "source" (in the meaning of "origin") that is "open", what does that even mean? That things can flow from it? Sorry but you are also aware of the term "closed source" right? Except that, if nothing originates from it, it's no longer a source. Yet if you interpret it as "closed source code", it still makes sense.
I don't really see how your link to the opensource.org/history proves your point, either. In fact it strengthens the other point as well. Sure it shows they decided to name their new licensing scheme "Open Source" (where it seems to me, "Source", from the context to be short for "Source Code") -- even though people had (naturally) already been using the term "open" for source code that is publically available.
So you can make the point, that possibly, they were the first that shortened "open source code" to "open source" and using that as a brand, while at the same time hijacking the meaning to something much more strict (namely excluding of open non-commercial licenses).