[cookingmyserver]

Unpopular opinion: this is the natural consequence of squatting self-descriptive phrases. Open source is self-descriptive.. the source is open. The phrase was hijacked (by the OSI) and is being squatted on by people who want to enforce a very specific meaning of the phrase, even though it is self-descriptive and broad. If there is any ambiguity as to the phrase, it should be added to with modifiers, and not just claimed. For example, what does open refer to in OSS? Lots of different things. Thats why you should specify when addressing your interpretation. OSS should be an umbrella phrase that covers the multitude of interpretations like source available, FOSS, FLOSS, etc.

I've thought about making a nonprofit called the Grape Initiative which would release a definition of "Grape" that only includes purple grapes. If people want to refer to green grapes well then I guess they will just have to say green grapes! When I think about grapes I always think about purple ones, makes sense to me!

[Naac]

>> The phrase was hijacked (by the OSI) and is being squatted on by people who want to enforce a very specific meaning of the phrase, even though it is self-descriptive and broad

I'm not sure that's a very generous interpretation.

In our industry these terms have very specific meanings. Just like other words in Physics, Law, or Medicine have very specific meanings to those in the field, but not to outsiders.

When we say Open Source, we use a two-word description to describe a much broader idea. Likewise when we say Free/Libre Software, we describe software licensed under specific conditions. Its obvious for us in this field why Google Chrome is not Free Software, but not so much for the average person.

>> OSS should be an umbrella phrase that covers the multitude of interpretations like source available, FOSS, FLOSS, etc.

I understand where you're coming from, but unfortunately OSS already has a strict definition. I agree there is a need for a more correct categorization, but it should be strictly and nomenclaturally separate from Open Source, to show that it is a much more restrictive license.

[sbauch]

The other industries you mention have gone through similar changes though haven't they? Not long ago, "idiot", "imbecile" and "moron" were all terms with strict definitions in the field of medicine. Languages, terms that are strictly defined, even terms that are particular to a science or industry, evolve over time.

[xorcist]

> The phrase was hijacked (by the OSI)

That is absolute nonsense. The people behind OSI worked long and hard to find a term that could be instead instead of Free Software, which they considered to have unfortunate connotations. This is something some disagree with, but that was their cause regardless. Their due diligence of the term took great trouble to make sure it had not any undocumented previous use.

Of course the words had occasionally been used together, but not as a term. That would have undermined their legal strategy altogether. They then failed to secure the trademarks they wanted, but not because the term had any documented previous use.

You may disagree with the outcome, you may disagree with the OSI altogether, but it is wrong to misrepresent history.

[cookingmyserver]

> Their due diligence of the term took great trouble to make sure it had not any undocumented previous use.

Doesn't mean an organization should be able to just take a self-descriptive phrase, say purple icicle, and assign a very specific meaning to it. Every self-descriptive phrase has an existing usage. Because one day you'll see an icicle that is purple and say "hey, purple icicle" only to have a horde of people rush and say "thats not a purple icicle!" (literally what happened in this thread).

> They then failed to secure the trademarks they wanted, but not because the term had any documented previous use.

No, of course they didn't have any documented previous use. "Documented previous use" being reserved uses before. You know why? Because it is a self-descriptive phrase that is too broad, ie descriptive mark which aren't granted. They chose a very basic self-descriptive phrase (frequency of previous use doesn't matter) and literally could not get it trademarked because it is self-descriptive and broad, but YET CONTINUED ON even after being swatted down by trademark offices around the world. Absolutely bonkers.

[bawolff]

Was the phrase open-source actually used in the generic way you describe within the industry, prior to OSI coming on the scene? Im not sure that it was, but i could be wrong. Regardless, the definition is pretty fixed now.

Nonetheless, you're right, words are hard, and this isn't a new argument about the suitability of the term "open source". RMS makes a similar point about the term in this rather old essay: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

[zeeg]

I've got to agree here. We - as an industry, not a cult of naysayers - need to evolve our views of what is 'in the spirit of open source'. BSL fits that definition from my eyes.