I hate the recent open-source rise(jvt.me)
jvt.me
I hate the recent open-source rise
https://www.jvt.me/posts/2026/05/12/open-source/
29 comments
Totally agreed. They don't have a trademark, and their superfans have no right to tell people how to capitalize or punctuate the term.
I also get the sense that the author has an inherently negative view of non-OSI-approved "source available" licenses -- and in particular the Business Source License, which he uses as a counterexample twice.
Yet, OSI cofounder Bruce Perens helped improve that license and specifically said "I feel it’s worthy of my endorsement. The new BSL will be a good way for developers to get paid while eventually making their works Open Source." [1]
Why do so many vocal people in the Open Source world have a much more extreme worldview than even an OSI cofounder?
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20250629110730/https://perens.co...
I also get the sense that the author has an inherently negative view of non-OSI-approved "source available" licenses -- and in particular the Business Source License, which he uses as a counterexample twice.
Yet, OSI cofounder Bruce Perens helped improve that license and specifically said "I feel it’s worthy of my endorsement. The new BSL will be a good way for developers to get paid while eventually making their works Open Source." [1]
Why do so many vocal people in the Open Source world have a much more extreme worldview than even an OSI cofounder?
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20250629110730/https://perens.co...
I personally prefer Free Software (FSF-approved) or Open Source (OSI-approved) licenses, but I also agree that there is a place for other licenses. It's better that there's space for kinda-open, rather than it being open vs completely closed repositories.
I've previously worked at a company using an "open source" license (Elastic, with the ELv2) and have enjoyed having to explain the difference to folks between what it meant to be "open source" vs "Open Source", and the fact that a lot of folks generally don't understand the difference and some of the nuance. Mentioning the BuSL was because it's something a lot more folks may be aware of, i.e. given Hashicorp's recent relicense (as with other companies in recent years)
Sustainability is hard, and having different ways to describe this is good! But it's a lot harder when people don't understand why something calling itself "open source" when it's "but you can't run it if you're a company" is bad
I've previously worked at a company using an "open source" license (Elastic, with the ELv2) and have enjoyed having to explain the difference to folks between what it meant to be "open source" vs "Open Source", and the fact that a lot of folks generally don't understand the difference and some of the nuance. Mentioning the BuSL was because it's something a lot more folks may be aware of, i.e. given Hashicorp's recent relicense (as with other companies in recent years)
Sustainability is hard, and having different ways to describe this is good! But it's a lot harder when people don't understand why something calling itself "open source" when it's "but you can't run it if you're a company" is bad
> I also agree that there is a place for other licenses. It's better that there's space for kinda-open, rather than it being open vs completely closed repositories.
That's good to hear, sincere apologies for assuming otherwise. There are a lot of folks on HN who take a much more extreme view there, and I seem to have incorrectly conflated them in the "open source" vs "Open Source" debate.
> having to explain the difference to folks between what it meant to be "open source" vs "Open Source", and the fact that a lot of folks generally don't understand the difference and some of the nuance
This speaks to the core naming problem though: the original OSI folks should have picked a better term! They thought "Free Software" wasn't a good term in part due to the gratis vs freedom confusion (totally agreed here), and yet they picked another equally-confusing term to use instead, that had a pre-existing generic meaning which wasn't related to specific license terms in any way.
That's good to hear, sincere apologies for assuming otherwise. There are a lot of folks on HN who take a much more extreme view there, and I seem to have incorrectly conflated them in the "open source" vs "Open Source" debate.
> having to explain the difference to folks between what it meant to be "open source" vs "Open Source", and the fact that a lot of folks generally don't understand the difference and some of the nuance
This speaks to the core naming problem though: the original OSI folks should have picked a better term! They thought "Free Software" wasn't a good term in part due to the gratis vs freedom confusion (totally agreed here), and yet they picked another equally-confusing term to use instead, that had a pre-existing generic meaning which wasn't related to specific license terms in any way.
> Why do so many vocal people in the Open Source world have a much more extreme worldview than even an OSI cofounder?
In my experience talking with many such people over decades... it's usually some type of personality disorder. I quit FOSS because of how prevalent this egotistical dogmatism persona is.
Besides the users that never stop complaining and love to make absurd demands of unpaid volunteers, a very depressingly-large number of other developers you end up working with are so self-absorbed and uninterested in actually getting along with other people that their only means of discussion is always about how everyone else is wrong and there can be no other valid opinions.
In my experience talking with many such people over decades... it's usually some type of personality disorder. I quit FOSS because of how prevalent this egotistical dogmatism persona is.
Besides the users that never stop complaining and love to make absurd demands of unpaid volunteers, a very depressingly-large number of other developers you end up working with are so self-absorbed and uninterested in actually getting along with other people that their only means of discussion is always about how everyone else is wrong and there can be no other valid opinions.
> If you're a prescriptivist, then open-source should be hyphenated for the same reason full-time, user-friendly, long-term, etc. are. That's how English works. You don't make the rules, and neither does OSI.
Honestly all of these exist in both hyphenated and unhyphenated usage in my experience and for long term and user friendly I’d guess unhyphenated gets more usage
Honestly all of these exist in both hyphenated and unhyphenated usage in my experience and for long term and user friendly I’d guess unhyphenated gets more usage
>> If you're a prescriptivist, then open-source should be hyphenated for the same reason full-time, user-friendly, long-term, etc. are. That's how English works.
> Honestly all of these exist in both hyphenated and unhyphenated usage in my experience
...which is descriptive, not prescriptive.
> Honestly all of these exist in both hyphenated and unhyphenated usage in my experience
...which is descriptive, not prescriptive.
The hyphenation probably stems from the fact that, grammatically, 'open-source' is a compound adjective. The LLMs are probably weighting this over the nature of 'open source' as jargon.
There is no such thing as "correct" or "incorrect" hyphenation, or for that matter "correct English". Source: linguists
> Linguists insist that it’s wrong to designate any kind of English “proper” because language always changes and always has. ... Rather, what is considered proper English is, like so much else, a matter of fashion.
Author:
> John McWhorter, contributing editor at The New Republic and columnist for The New York Daily News, teaches linguistics, American studies and Western civilization at Columbia University. His latest book is “What Language Is, What It Isn’t and What It Could Be.”
https://archive.nytimes.com/opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20...
> Linguists insist that it’s wrong to designate any kind of English “proper” because language always changes and always has. ... Rather, what is considered proper English is, like so much else, a matter of fashion.
Author:
> John McWhorter, contributing editor at The New Republic and columnist for The New York Daily News, teaches linguistics, American studies and Western civilization at Columbia University. His latest book is “What Language Is, What It Isn’t and What It Could Be.”
https://archive.nytimes.com/opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20...
What instead? If not free software, then maybe ONF software: Open{- }source is Not Free.
I think using `open source`, and clarifying that it includes non-OSI-approved licenses could work.
Alternatively, "source available" is a term that's been used to imply the source is there, but it's not "open source" (which led to the Fair Source folks working on their own naming for it, so as some folks have negative views of "source available")
Alternatively, "source available" is a term that's been used to imply the source is there, but it's not "open source" (which led to the Fair Source folks working on their own naming for it, so as some folks have negative views of "source available")
What has stuck with me is the phrase "free and open source," which is like, if the two were equivalent, there wouldn't be a need for the distinction.
Maybe that was when software binaries could be free but the source was not.
Maybe that was when software binaries could be free but the source was not.
There are two big organizations: FSF (Free Software Foundation) and OSI (Open Source Initiative), and while they have similar ideas, they disagree on the details. Free software is more in line with the ideas of the FSF (more idealistic), while open source is more in line with the idea of the OSI (more pragmatic).
There is also the term "libre" (meaning "free as in freedom") to distinguish it from software that doesn't cost money.
There is also the term "libre" (meaning "free as in freedom") to distinguish it from software that doesn't cost money.
F/OSS is like GNU/Linux; the second part is the part which matters, but the first part keeps getting pushed by noisy people so we put up with it to keep them happy.
Hah, yes very true!
If you've not read up on the background between the two - I'd very much recommend it (and sorry if I'm re-explaining something you understand)
With Free Software, it's "free as in freedom", not "free as in gratis". Free Software is generally a bit more strongly biased towards the users of a piece of software, but as businesses started to use it they were a bit unhappy with that, so Open Source came to reduce that a little bit, making it easier for companies to use it, without as many strong protections for a user
See also [1]
[0]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
If you've not read up on the background between the two - I'd very much recommend it (and sorry if I'm re-explaining something you understand)
With Free Software, it's "free as in freedom", not "free as in gratis". Free Software is generally a bit more strongly biased towards the users of a piece of software, but as businesses started to use it they were a bit unhappy with that, so Open Source came to reduce that a little bit, making it easier for companies to use it, without as many strong protections for a user
See also [1]
[0]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
I also hate open source.
The derailment of free software to a profit making exercise. As opposed to the sharing of software written by entities that will use the software,, and thus write it for themselves.
Apparently, there is only for-sale products, no entity that would use software would ever write it. And even if they did, they would never share it.
The purpose of life, the universe and everything: shareholder returns, obviously...
The derailment of free software to a profit making exercise. As opposed to the sharing of software written by entities that will use the software,, and thus write it for themselves.
Apparently, there is only for-sale products, no entity that would use software would ever write it. And even if they did, they would never share it.
The purpose of life, the universe and everything: shareholder returns, obviously...
periodjet(3)
Commercial, paid: You must pay money, you get access to service or a binary, or something in between. No source code released.
Shareware: You get to download and use the binary for free. Parts of it are missing, you must pay to receive a copy of it. (DOOM, WinRAR, Duke Nukem)
Freeware: Binaries are free to use and distribute, complete functionality. Source code not published. (Adobe Acrobat Reader, Draw.io, IrfanView, Google Earth Pro)
Open-source: The source code is openly available. Sometimes development also happens in the open. (PHP, Apache HTTPD, Linux, GCC)
Open weights: AI model weights released including inference, tokenizer code and chat template. Some info released about how it was made. Training dataset and taining code NOT published. Crawler, scraper, book piracy, distillation methods: NOT published.
Shareware: You get to download and use the binary for free. Parts of it are missing, you must pay to receive a copy of it. (DOOM, WinRAR, Duke Nukem)
Freeware: Binaries are free to use and distribute, complete functionality. Source code not published. (Adobe Acrobat Reader, Draw.io, IrfanView, Google Earth Pro)
Open-source: The source code is openly available. Sometimes development also happens in the open. (PHP, Apache HTTPD, Linux, GCC)
Open weights: AI model weights released including inference, tokenizer code and chat template. Some info released about how it was made. Training dataset and taining code NOT published. Crawler, scraper, book piracy, distillation methods: NOT published.
If you're a prescriptivist, then open-source should be hyphenated for the same reason full-time, user-friendly, long-term, etc. are. That's how English works. You don't make the rules, and neither does OSI.
If you're a descriptivist, then why are is OSI getting a monopoly on everyone's vocabulary? You should be happy to let people use whatever term however they want. You know, freedom and all. You still don't make the rules, and neither does OSI.
MW also thinks it's hyphenated, but what do they know, right? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open-source