Hacker News Reader

Comment by on_the_train | Hacker News Reader

A random "initiative" does not have the power to redefine words. If the source is available, it's open source.

The OSI definition of open-source software is recognized by several governments worldwide as definitive and legally binding. What you're describing is source available and that's a very different thing.

Which governments? OSI wasn't even granted a trademark for "open source" in the US, the country they are based in.

That makes complete sense though? They don't hold the IP, I don't really see any way they could be granted a trademark on it.

As for the list, see [0].

[0] https://opensource.org/about/authority

They applied for a trademark and were rejected due to the term being too generic/descriptive. It has nothing to do with whether they hold IP.

That list doesn't appear to be "legally binding" in a general sense; to me, the way you worded that implies "there is a law saying OSD is the definition of open source in this country" which is very far from the case.

Instead that list appears to be specific cases/situations e.g. how some US states evaluate bids from vendors, or how specific government organizations release software. And many things on that list are just casual references to the OSI/OSD but not laws at all.

A trademark is literally a form of IP. Clearly you don't know what you're talking about.

I didn't say a trademark isn't a form of IP. I said their application for a trademark was rejected due to "open source" being too generic/descriptive, not due to the reason you directly asserted above ("They don't hold the IP, I don't really see any way they could be granted a trademark on it").

You can read more about this at https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p... or https://www.techmonitor.ai/technology/open_source_initiative... among many other sources. Or a much longer blog post from a lawyer who is active on HN: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2020/05/11/Open-Source-Proper...

fwiw, a non-OSI attempt to trademark "open source hardware" was also rejected for the exact same reason. https://opensource.com/law/13/5/os-hardware-trademark-reject...

that would be “source available” software, and it’s not a random initiative

there is disagreement on exactly what “open source” means, but generally clear boundaries between open source and source available software in licensing and spirit of the given project. e.g. MIT and Apache 2.0 are open source, BSL is source available.

edit: PERSONALLY, I think if you don’t welcome outside contributions, it isn’t open source; see others’ responses for disagreement on this (it’s not a part of the standard definition)

> if you don’t welcome outside contributions, it isn’t open source

That isn't true. Open source refers to the ability to make use of the source code if you wish, not the ability to send pull requests. SQLite is open source (public domain even!), but does not accept contributions from outside.

argh I will re-edit my comment…sorta covered by the “disagreement” bit, and I disagree on this point (it’s not open to me if you don’t openly accept contributions), but you are right

Indeed, and it can also be free software and under a copyleft license (GPL AGPL etc) and not accept contributions. Otherwise, every project that shut down or was just a one off gist/blog post to begin with couldn't be called open source either!

Open source means the source is open, ie downloadable. It's not that complicated, that can't just be made up to mean something else

it’s not made up (well all language is made up but I digress), you’re just being flagrantly ignorant of the terms you’re using and their history. you can easily go read up on open source vs source available and the history of the terms/licenses

it’s also fine by me if you want to have your own definition; see other comments, I don’t personally 100% agree with OSI’s definition myself

One can find leaked Windows source code on the Internet. Is it open source?

> it’s not a random initiative

Arguably it is, in the sense that they didn't actually invent the term; there are many documented pre-OSI uses (including by high-profile folks like Bill Joy) saying "open source" to just mean "source available". And OSI's attempt to trademark the term was rejected.

> if you don’t welcome outside contributions, it isn’t open source

That isn't even part of the OSI's definition, so what are you basing this on?

> That isn't even part of the OSI's definition, so what are you basing this on?

edited my comment —- that is my personal belief/definition

I did mention there’s disagreement —- I haven’t read up on the history and whatnot myself in a while. will have to do some re-reading :)

> PERSONALLY, I think if you don’t welcome outside contributions, it isn’t open source

It's not a question of belief. Maybe words don't mean anything anymore, but certainly legal contracts and licenses do. "Open Source" is a class of licenses approved by the OSI. There are no spirits involved.

meh…I consider an open source license distinct from an open source project. obviously legal contracts can define their own static terms; language is dynamic

Open Source means OSI-approved license in the software context. Some government examples of this being explicitly mentioned:

- Canada/British Columbia: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/government/services-for-go... - European Union (this applies to all EU member states): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/2847/oj/eng - search for "Free and open-source software is understood" in the text - Germany (the EU definition already applies here, but for good measure): https://www.bsi.bund.de/DE/Themen/Verbraucherinnen-und-Verbr...

Words have meaning!

Your first link (Canada/BC) offers guidelines for BC government usage of open source software. In this type of situation, the OSI's list of approved licenses (and OSD in general) is very helpful, since it avoids massive duplicative legal overhead of evaluating software licenses. But in my opinion, that has little bearing on whether or not people should strictly follow this definition in an international public forum.

As far as I can see, your second link (applies to all EU member states) makes no mention of the OSI whatsoever, and uses a definition that is far briefer and less specific than the OSD.

I cannot evaluate the third link (Germany) as I don't speak German and automatic translation may introduce subtle changes.

The didn't redefine the words, they defined them. Anyone using them for anything other than the purposes they were defined to cover is a dishonest parasite who is intending to trade on the goodwill of the people who adhere to OSI's guidelines. "Open Source," capitalized or not, was not a common phrase before they introduced it. I don't care if somebody in 1965 said "I decided I'm going to be open, and share the source code!" Somebody sitting right next to him probably said "I decided I'm going to be open, and tell people that I will never share the source code."

Because prefixing something with the word "Open" to imply that it would be completely transparent (in any context) wasn't even common before the term "Open Source" was invented. When people do that, they're hoping that the goodwill that Open Source has generated will be transferred to them, and they are judged on that basis. "Open" generally had a slightly different meaning: honest.

> A random "initiative"

And when you play stupid, nobody respects your argument. It's self-defeating.

As a personal anecdote, while I’ve heard smart people say they were using “open source” way back when, I had personally never heard it used in any way before starting to used Linux and the BSDs in the late 90s, when OSI came along and people started discussing it in that context.

I can’t say others weren’t using it before then. I can say say that I first heard of Open Source after I’d heard of Free Software.

Yes, "Open Source" is newer than "Free Software". The phrases was deliberately coined, yes in the 1990s, to cover different (and mostly broader) ground... because there was a desire for a clear distinction between them. Which there still is.

Well, OSI didn’t coin “open source”. Factually, the term existed before OSI started using it. People have shared examples of isolated usage before then. However, they definitely brought it, and the modern definition, into common usage.

Like, if people had collectively used the term 23 times through 1996, then 837,000 times in 1997 or whenever OSI popularized it, I’m fully onboard with saying it’s their term.

Not all phrases’ meanings are derivable from the literal definitions of the words that make them up.

But this one definitely is!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com