[prepend]

I’ve heard this line before and it confuses me. What is the authority?

It seems to me that it’s OSI (around for years, reputable, etc) vs some for profit companies misusing common terminology in the, I think false, sense that people think non-open things they call open are good. Not sure if they are deluded or just wrong.

Happy to talk about some new authority for open source licenses, but it seems like the “OSI isn’t an authority, nobody is” is an argument by 8th graders who just read the Wikipedia article on communism.

OSI formed to help open source developers and users to better understand “proper” licenses from bullshit.

[eudoxus]

But "Open Source" both as a term and idea pre-dates the OSI's formation. The general definition of "Open Source" shouldn't be universally defined by a single body.

The OSI has done a great job at introducing a legally ratified and globally recognized license format to help reduce uncertainty, but it is not, and has on several occasions been denied[0], the global authority on the definition of Open Source. They have a trademark and are the authority for "Open Source Initiative Approved License" (ie: "OSI License") specifically.

[0]: https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...

[prepend]

Of course it predates the formation of OSI. OSI didn’t invent the term, it’s just a group of people who formed to formalize and help adoption.

It’s not like there’s some competing definition. OSI has been around for 20+ years and only recently did a few companies decide they want a different definition so they can make more money.

But the issue isn’t that there’s some word police. The issue is that open source has a definition in use and when people try to overload, it gets confusing. I wish people wouldn’t do that, but it’s free country (free as in speech, not free as in beer).

No one cares if source is “open” in that people can view it. In that case windows is “open.” The important part of open is the ability to change, reuse, and participate.

Why would anyone care if source is visible but not usable? I’ve been able to decompile forever. I can see the source if I need to. The community and reuse aspect is important.

Finally, OSI doesn’t define the term. They just certify licenses that adhere to open source principles and ideas. The community defines the term. Everyone is free to make up new licenses. OSI just helps the community filter out noise by reviewing licenses that actually are open source.

[eudoxus]

> Finally, OSI doesn’t define the term. They just certify licenses that adhere to open source principles and ideas. The community defines the term. Everyone is free to make up new licenses. OSI just helps the community filter out noise by reviewing licenses that actually are open source.

This is exactly my point, the community defines the term. The OSI definition does a good job of making the legal aspect of (their vision for) "open source" explicit, but it also adds additional definitions beyond what the average layperson might consider "Open Source".

Take section 5 and 6 of the "Open Source Definition"[0]. It states you can't discriminate against "persons, groups, fields, or endeavors". So if I wrote some software, put a MIT license on it, with a single additional clause that says the CIA can not use this software. Magically, it is no longer "Open Source" according to the OSI, even though 99.9999% of people can freely use it under the MIT.

[0]: https://opensource.org/osd

They have a definition, they even have a pretty good definition, but the OSI shouldn't be the definition. All OSI licenses are open source licenses, but not all open source licenses are OSI licenses. (All thumbs are fingers, not all fingers are thumbs).

[prepend]

> So if I wrote some software, put a MIT license on it, with a single additional clause that says the CIA can not use this software.

Right, because it’s not open source and not MIT. Open source isn’t about 99.999% of people being able to use it, it’s about be free and open.

This is the commonly accepted definition of open source and there’s very few who would consider your custom license open source.

Practically speaking, it means I can’t use it even though I’m not in the CIA because I want my project to be compatible and reusable down the line by anyone. So I use a true OSI license like MIT and want all the software I link to and use compatible so users have a clear expectation.

You can make your new license, but I don’t want to use it as I only want to use open source licenses.

I don’t want to hire an attorney to review your license and see if it works or not. I want to just filter by known licenses and make sure they are compatible with my other licenses.

There are open source licenses that aren’t OSI, but they are pretty few and OSI works diligently to review new licenses and add them.

Your example license isn’t open source though, so it doesn’t fit this small group.

[rat9988]

"This is the commonly accepted definition of open source and there’s very few who would consider your custom license open source."

You might think so but I disagree.

[prepend]

Yes, it’s a free country. That’s why we have consensus.

1000 people misusing the term means the term changes. 1 person misusing the term is just a jerk.

I’m always suspicious when people overloading a term are all doing it for personal benefit (ie, promoting their product).

I think consensus is around OSI now, but it could change. I might not be right in the future, but I think I’m right now.

[tremon]

"Source" also was a term and idea predating the first ever computer source code. Definitions can change.

[eudoxus]

This is a somewhat pedantic and useless comment. Of course definitions can change, but the notion of "open source" hasn't changed in any significant and notable fashion since it was first coined in the late 90s. Feel free to disprove me.

[ddingus]

Exactly right!