Open Source undefined, part 1: the alternative origin story
The blog post examines the origins and evolving definitions of "Open Source" software, discussing its historical context, the OSI's role, trademark issues, and ongoing debates about commercial redistribution.
Read original article
The blog post discusses the origins and evolving definitions of "Open Source" software, highlighting the complexities and controversies surrounding its meaning. The author reflects on their two-decade involvement in the Open Source community and aims to clarify the historical context and the role of the Open Source Initiative (OSI) and its Open Source Definition (OSD). The OSI was founded in 1998 by Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond to promote a new term that would appeal to a broader audience, moving away from the politically charged "Free Software." Despite the OSI's efforts, the term "Open Source" had been in use prior to its formal definition, with examples dating back to the mid-1990s, including Caldera's OpenDOS and a Texas-based company named OpenSource, Inc. The author notes that the OSI's trademark application for "Open Source" was rejected due to its descriptive nature, which has led to ongoing debates about the term's usage and implications, particularly regarding commercial redistribution. The post sets the stage for a series of discussions aimed at addressing tensions within the Open Source community and industry.
- The term "Open Source" was formalized by the OSI in 1998, but had been used earlier in various contexts.
- The OSI's mission was to support industry rather than the community of hobbyists.
- The rejection of the OSI's trademark application for "Open Source" highlights the term's descriptive nature.
- Ongoing debates focus on commercial redistribution and the implications of the Open Source Definition.
- The author plans to explore these tensions in a series of future posts.
Related
4 comments> The conferees decided it was time to dump the moralizing and confrontational attitude that had been associated with "free software" in the past and sell the idea strictly on the same pragmatic, business-case grounds that had motivated Netscape.
As is the way of so many things, what started out as an attempt to be pragmatic and to ditch dogma has become a dogma of its own. It's somewhat painful to me to see the "OSI definition" of Open Source held up as a canonical gospel when the organization was explicitly founded to do away with the moralizing of the Free Software movement.
If we're going to have a moral movement, let's make it the one that was designed to champion user freedoms, not the one that was created to be friendly to corporations. And on the flip side, if we're going to have a movement that is friendly to corporations, why not let it adapt to changing situations to continue to be friendly?
[0] http://web.archive.org/web/20071115150105/https://opensource...
Removing the distracting idea that s/w could be for the benefit of it's users, as opposed to the financial brnefit of the ownership of s/w development.
This is why you'll never see the words "free software" in the vulture capital oriented HN...