Open Source Definition Debate

You seem to be confusing whether something is "open source" with "what kind of license does the code have".Something being "open source" does not imply anything about its license.Suggesting that only GPL-like software is allowed to use the term "open source" is crazy. It doesn't reflect the world we live in at all: there are thousands of projects on github without a license, or with some "free for non-military use"-type of license, or

Sorry, I cannot agree with you. OSI came up with the term "open source," hence I will use it as it is conventionally used, ie via their definition. If you want to literally interpret that, feel free to do so but know that others, such as those commenting on your thread, will not agree with you.

You are about the open source part: http://opensource.org/osd. The 'Naming' section of your link references the osd.Calling it just one or the other is enough though. Being "under a Free Software license" by definition means "the code is open (i.e. you can study it), so no need to say "and Open Source".I do however prefer calling it free software over open source as I find the fr

> The most obvious meaning is that the source code is publicly visibleIt's not, really.Words don't live in a vacuum. Their meaning is determined by their actual usage, which is depends on the cultural context, which is itself determined by history."Open source" started being used when the Open Source movement started, to mean what the OSD means. Before, the phrase was not used.You can't rewrite history and you can't decide for everyone the meaning of

No, it’s not open source. Period. Why are people trying to argue black is white?https://opensource.org/osdThe OSD was created precisely to prevent this kind of underhanded twisting of words.Want to use a non-open license, go for it! But find your own phrase to describe it. “Open source” is taken.

Having to define "open source" with that addendum illustrates the issue quite apropriately."Open Source ≠ open source" is the essence of the problem. The source is open, yet it isn't open source.Here's an experiment you can run: hold an informal survey amongst a representative subset of programmers. "What does open source mean?". See what they say. I think I met one who knew what the OSI was.Ironically, "free software" is a similarly ter

No it's not, and yes it does. This trend on HN that has consisted in wanting to kill the meaning of "open source" as most people understand it is very weird and surprising. I don't understand what is at stake. I have noticed this since one month or so.The vast majority of projects that call themselves open source mean the open source definition as defined by the open source initiative, or something equivalent.You might not like or recognize the OSI and that's fine,

There appears to be a common confusion that Open Source means "source you can see". Instead Open Source is a made-up word which was created to avoid the confusion associated with Free Software, as in the Free Software Foundation.That is to say: an "open source" license which does not let you redistribute is not an Open Source license at all. Even Microsoft has not tried to mis-use the term instead using "Share Source" for their, thing.

The term predates its use in software, but as used in the software industry it typically refers to the Open Source Definition: https://opensource.org/osdDeviating from that isn’t illegal (they don’t own the term), but claiming your software is open source if it doesn’t meet that definition will generally earn you some blowback.

"Open source" was a service mark of OSI, an attempt to defend the term against people who use it inconsistently with its definition. I don't know if this is still the case, but OSI still advocates for use of "open source" consistent with the definition below.Both open source and free software are defined as software that allows you to:* use the software for any purpose* examine the source* distribute the software under the same license terms as you received i