Is the concept of open source unclear to you? People in open source are confused too. With its democratisation and the absence of appropriate definition, even specialists are wondering what it means.
There is a variety of interpretations for the notion of open source. It's very likely that the person you're talking to won't have the same one. Open is a vague term, but so is source.
Within the notion of «open source», you have a literal meaning about sources availability, a kind of conventional meaning suggested by the (controversial) Open Source Initiative (OSI), some potential implicit such as the (open) collaboration dimension, mixed with the idea that "source" may be broader than software in digital resources.
Depending on the background, the meaning of open source will be a mix of these various elements.
You end up with some folks sharing their content with sources under open license with restriction believing that collaboration is embedded in the notion, those better informed (≠ right) who don't recognise this as open source because it doesn't meet the OSI's licensing criteria, or you can have the company who absolutely don't care about collaboration just releasing resources under conventional open license.
Multiple and contradictory interpretations, causing a great deal of misunderstanding.
We can witness a growing number of people trying to understand open source and raise this ambiguity.
Around this implicit collaboration, some people try to distinguish between «the letter of the law» and the «spirit of the law», the open source [artifact] and the open collaboration: https://haacked.com/archive/2012/02/22/spirit-of-open-source.aspx/
Others could debate on the fact that open source may not be about software despite we commonly link open source to software. «Open source, not just software anymore»: https://ben.balter.com/2014/01/27/open-collaboration/
We're having a confusing term with multiple meanings composed of polysemous words.
To claim that there is no definition is in fact blasphemy for part of the open source community, as there is a set of license criteria called the Open Source Definition (OSD), hosted by the OSI.
In fact, this pseudo-definition probably adds to the confusion. While claiming to define open source, it says nothing about collaboration or anything other than software.
The OSD define a really strict set of license, without restrictions. Carefree people leaving their resources and their sources online, thinking it's open source but being told that it's not. Passionate debates where it's explained that when you open a source, it's not open source.
The meaning of open source is claimed to be defined by the Open Source Initiative, enforced by some folks, contested elsewhere. “Open Source” Is Nobody’s Property: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2020/05/11/Open-Source-Property
Several layers of confusion with a conflict on top, the important thing is to understand that we don't understand. Confusion is normal, clarity is suspicious.
Top comments (0)