[Nadya]

Does similar confusion exist when asking people what the Childhood Cancer Data Initiative or Sustainable Energy Initiatives are about? Do you think there is a similar level of misperception among laypersons about the meaning of those initiatives? The common misperception regarding "Free Software" is that people think it means "gratis" rather than "libre". The common misperception with "Open Source" is that people think it means "source-code publicly available". But if the argument about common misperceptions being muddied water is not entirely convincing for you we can take another look at how the terms are defined.

The Free Software Foundation disagrees that "Open Source" and "Free Software" are the same thing. The discussion about whether they are the same thing should end there if we are to accept that the authority defining "Open Source" are correct in their definition of "Open Source". The same credence should be given to the authority defining "Free Software" providing the correct definition of "Free Software". If we are to accept both of these definitions as given by the authorities defining the terms - then they are necessarily different because the authority defining one of the terms says so despite any attempts of another authority who did not define the term at claiming otherwise.

In other words: X defines X and says X = X and X != Y. Y defines Y and says Y = Y and Y = X. Since X defines X and Y does not define X we must accept that X != Y per X's definition of X despite Y's attempt at redefining X such that Y = X.

It's uncharitable to point to OSI's definition of "Open Source" and OSI's claims that they are one and the same while completely ignoring FSF's definition of "Free Software" and FSF's claims that they are different.

[pabs3]

> Does similar confusion exist when asking people what the Childhood Cancer Data Initiative or Sustainable Energy Initiatives are about?

No idea about cancer, but even just on HN there is confusion about which meaning of "sustainable" is being used and what environmental and other impacts each energy technology embodies.

[cxr]

> Does similar confusion exist when asking people what the Childhood Cancer Data Initiative or Sustainable Energy Initiatives are about? Do you think there is a similar level of misperception among laypersons about the meaning of those initiatives?

I think most lay persons, upon being informed of the existence of a "Sustainable Energy Initiative", would readily admit when pressed to a lack of sufficient familiarity with the subject that would allow them to answer with confidence about what does or does not meet the standards of being deemed "sustainable energy". Likewise with anything involving "cancer"—most people cannot define it.

But this is beside the point, because we're not talking about the work activity of the OSI. We're taking about the definition of "open source". This is not the first instance of your moving the goalposts in this discussion.

> The common misperception regarding "Free Software" is that people think it means "gratis" rather than "libre". The common misperception with "Open Source" is that people think it means "source-code publicly available".

Right. The key thing being that those are misperceptions.

Misperceptions about the distinction between "cancer" versus "viral infection" versus "bacterial infection" would not lead us to say that because the public does not have a good understanding then the definition of "cancer" changes to something that it isn't.

> if the argument about common misperceptions being muddied water is not entirely convincing

That's not what's at issue.

> The Free Software Foundation disagrees that "Open Source" and "Free Software" are the same thing.

The FSF agrees that the definition of "open source" is the one that was formulated at the end of the last millennium; the FSF doesn't disagree with the OSI about the definition of "open source".

We started with your claim from the ahistorical definition of "open source" that a given project may not actually permit people to make their fork available to others. Any argument you make here needs to support that.

So far, you're making a lot of facile "water _is_ wet*"-style observations and, I dunno, hoping that no one will notice that that was never the point of contention.

* Try substituting "FSF was founded in 1985" (or any other factual statement) here that while true nonetheless has no bearing on the actual substance of the current dispute, despite whatever surface-level relevance it may appear to have to someone who is only halfway paying attention.

[Nadya]

I made my point incredibly poorly as I was a bit pressed for time. My bringing up other initiatives misled you as to the point I was poorly trying to make. My point was that laypersons know what the words mean - there is no "aha, it actually means <an entirely unrelated definition of the words used>!" in the words "childhood cancer data". If one knows the words "childhood", "cancer", and "data" they can accurately guess what "childhood cancer data" means and that is not the case for "open source" which has an obvious meaning in plain English which is also not what it means at all.

How people use words matters almost as much as what those words mean - and meaning can change because of how people use words over the course of years, decades, or centuries. Pointing at a dictionary is only useful when clarifying which meaning is being used.

> That's not what's at issue.

Then what is the issue, if you don't mind me asking? The issue as I understand it was what was meant by "open source" and my not already prescribing to the OSI's definition of it. Pointing to the OSI's definition cleared the air about which definition was being used but did not resolve the issue that the phrasing is easily misunderstood outside of the OSS community and is the reason the term "FLOSS" exists to circumvent the issue. The fact they had to specify the definition as defined by OSI and not "source available" is part of the issue. That this misperception exists at all is part of the issue. That the OSI has had to plea with people to please use the branding how they want it to be used [0] is part of the issue. That it is not totally uncommon to see "open source" to only mean "source available" is part of the issue. That "open source" has an obvious plain-English meaning separate from it's "intended meaning" is part of the issue. This is an issue that has existed in the community for the entirety of its 23 years of existence, been spoken about at length by both the OSI and FSF as being an issue, and some people are acting like it's the first time they've ever heard about this being an issue or even denying that it is an existing issue at all.

I'm not sure how many articles from community leaders and the very people who defined the words in the first place speaking about the issue being an issue I need to cite before people go "OK maybe it is an existing issue and not just Nadya saying it's an existing issue when it isn't."

To actually and intentionally move the goalposts this time: It still isn't even logically sound that because you're able to fork and send a PR on Github that the project is "open source" to begin with and it especially doesn't follow that the project is compliant with OSI's definition of "open source". Per my understanding of the Github Terms of Service Section D Parts 4-7 the license given to other users only extends so far as to their using Github's functionality (including "forking") - which I'm reading as not providing any license to compile or redistribute modified source code compiled into an executable. Making sending a PR possibly the only reasonable method of ensuring that a fix or feature makes it to end users.

[0] https://opensource.org/node/163

[pabs3]

Even worse is that "free software" has a vastly different meaning to a layperson, who probably think mostly gratis before they think libre when they hear "free".

It might be time to start using more descriptive sentences like "source code available under a proprietary license" or "libre software that can be made proprietary" or "software that is perpetually libre" instead of the "Free Software" and "Open Source" terms.

[Nadya]

The problem with "free software" definitely exists as well but the intended meaning is still a plain English meaning of the word "free" but not the first one that comes to mind. Making it easier to correct "Free as in freedom, not as in beer." than "Please read the OSI definition of what 'open source' means." or still a bit confusingly "It's actually about the licensing of the source code and not the source code itself."

I agree it is still a problem - which is why "gratis" and "libre" see use to prevent the confusion and why I prefer the term "FLOSS".

[pabs3]

> It's actually about the licensing of the source code and not the source code itself.

This is a big misconception. The Open Source Definition requires source code, you can't have an "open source" project that just releases binaries under the BSD license for example. The OSD (and the Debian Free Software Guidelines that the OSD is based on) is about the software and its attributes, including both the source code and the license.

[Nadya]

The big misconception you speak of is being that the requirement is met if a <compiled binary> is released under a FOSS license but that isn't at all what I said. I said the licensing of the <source code> - not of any compiled binaries - is what matters. Swapping <source code> for <compiled binary> of course entirely changes the claim being made. The freedoms afforded by FLOSS licenses necessitate the availability of the source code as a pre-requisite to being met. So one does not meet the terms of the license of the source code if users cannot study/modify it and cannot distribute modified versions of it on account of not being able to modify it due to not being able to access it. Access to the source code in FLOSS licenses is intentional but also a side effect of the freedoms already afforded. There is no 5th freedom requiring the source code to be available because it already must be available in order to meet the requirements of freedoms 2 and 4.

But I'm still entirely wrong.

I'm completely and unequivocally wrong due to two other requirements - both of which actually pertain to the source code and not its licensing. There are in fact two requirements placed upon the source code itself to be considered open source under the OSD or even as free software as the FSF defines it. (1) It may not be deliberately obfuscated. Which makes me wonder if programs written to be deliberately obfuscated are technically not allowed to be considered free-libre or open source software? Such as programs written to compete in IOCCC or if the intent here matters and it's more about releasing obfuscated versions of source code that was not already written to be obfuscated and was made obfuscated with the intent being to prevent others from studying/modifying it. That one I think is a bit of a technicality. (2) The other being that the source code, if not released with the program, must be available in a well-publicized manner at no more than a reasonable cost of distribution/reproduction (ie no charging $1,000 for access to the source code to claim it's "technically available").