Open Source undefined, part 1: the alternative origin story
There’s been no shortage of contention on what “Open Source software” means. Two instances that stand out to me personally are ElasticSearch’s “Doubling down on Open” and Scott Chacon’s “public on GitHub”.
I’ve been active in Open Source for 20 years and could use a refresher on its origins and officialisms. The plan was simple: write a blog post about why the OSI (Open Source Initiative) and its OSD (Open Source Definition) are authorative, collect evidence in its support (confirmation that they invented the term, of widespread acceptance with little dissent, and of the OSD being a practical, well functioning tool). That’s what I keep hearing, I just wanted to back it up. Since contention always seems to be around commercial re-distribution restrictions (which are forbidden by the OSD), I wanted to particularly confirm that there hasn’t been all that many commercial vendors who’ve used, or wanted, to use the term “open source” to mean “you can view/modify/use the source, but you are limited in your ability to re-sell, or need to buy additional licenses for use in a business”
However, the further I looked, the more I found evidence of the opposite of all of the above. I’ve spent a few weeks now digging and some of my long standing beliefs are shattered. I can’t believe some of the things I found out. Clearly I was too emotionally invested, but after a few weeks of thinking, I think I can put things in perspective. So this will become not one, but multiple posts.
