> The broad distinction we care about within free software is copyleft vs. permissive
You are exactly correct about this.
1. Open-Source is a "Marketing Program for Free-Software". You describe yourself as having the "free-software" world view (which I describe as an anti-developer property worldview).
> The terms get harder because open/closed suggests straightforward opposites that partition all the options.
2. Again, you are exactly correct. By erroneously choosing term that is generic, that was already in use, and that can't be trademarked, the OSI set itself up for a loosing battle as "the universal standard" for what is not "closed-source".
GENERIC/DESCRIPTIVE: "We have discovered that there is virtually no chance that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office would register the mark “open source”; the mark is too descriptive. Ironically, we were partly a victim of our own success in bringing the “open source”
concept into the mainstream. So “Open Source” is not and cannot become a trademark.
> But I'd characterize licenses like BSL and the Fair Source License as 'generous proprietary licenses with public source availability', but not open-source.
As a person with a self-defined affiliation with free-software, it makes complete sense that you would see it this way, but how many people outside of the free-software group see that? The further someone is from self-affiliation with "free-software" surely the less likely they are to agree with this terminology.
> I have a feeling that the term 'open-source' is more likely to erode than 'free software', in the coming decades. We'll see, I guess.
I 100% agree with you. The OSI postulates a union between the interests of people who release software into the public domain, and the interests of people like yourself who believe in Free-Software.
In my view, there is nothing uniting these two groups and the fracture is 100% inevitable. Even if your preferred term `source-available` were to gain widespread acceptance/use, there is no reason for independent developers to subsidize big business by making their source free to use for those big businesses, unless the developers ideologically agree with the tenants of the free-software movement. However, if the developers agreed with the free-software movement, they would choose a GPL style license, not a MIT/BSD/Apache style public domain license.
Fans of Free-Software believe the opposite of "closed source" is not "open-source", apparently they believe the opposite is "source available" - but how many people would agree?
The USPTO denied a trademark and service mark for "open-source" to the OSI when they applied: "So “open-source” is not and cannot become a trademark"
Why should a 10-point list of "Debian's Free Software Guidelines" for the union of public domain software + FSF style Free Software define the opposite of "closed-source"?
Why doesn't the OSI focus on it's own trademark:
"OSI Approved License(tm)", a trademark that it actually owns;
rather than forever trying to harass, bully and shame independent that share all of their code but otherwise eschew "free software" and "public domain software"?
Does anyone ever claim that they're trying to release free-software but not FSF free-software?
I think the issue is that the opposite of `closed-source` is clearly not `OSI Approved License(tm) open-source`.
If had the influence they like to claim with their "we invented the term open-source" myth, why don't they go invent some term for "non-closed source, non-OSI approved license(tm)" software, and everyone will use that.
BTW, here's a handy list of uses of `open-source` going back to 1985...
Seems that the term was already in existence, I guess that's why the OSI's attempt at "open-source(tm)" went down in flames...
> While there is agreement on the broad term "open source" as meaning approximately what is captured in the Open Source Definition the term has, ironically, now become so popular that it has lost some of its precision.
Why did the OSI apply for a trademark on the term Open-Source?
Why does the OSI continue pay the trademark registration fee to renew the unambiguous term "OSI Approved License" and why don't you adopt that term?
Perhaps because both you and the OSI know that when you focus on the term "OSI Approved Licenses", it's just another word for "free software", and most people that are interested in "open-source" are interested because it's the opposite of "closed-source", not interested because they want to associate with the FSFs anti-developer property ideology.
> I imagine this probably also includes astroturfing to apply pressure on companies who don't go "all the way" and basically subsidise their competitors for free.
I think you are exactly correct.
It's deeply disturbing that the OSI out of one side of their mouth says "indie developers, you should forgo any right to your own software or not truly open-source" and out of the other side of their mouth collects donations from giant internet monopolies that freeload...
MIT/BSD/Public Domain licenses long pre-date the OSI.
The FSF is it's own thing...
What's even the point of the OSI beyond trying to pressure developers to drop their creations into the public domain to be stolen?
So in your view, what is the opposite of "closed source"?
Is your definition the one that 99% of English speaking humans would agree with?
Why should the opposite of "closed closed source" be one groups ideological checklist, that's really an offshoot of "free software", a radical, anti-property ideology that is generally not accepted - and thus the GPL licenses are generally unpopular.
Why does the OSI bother to maintain a trademark on "OSI Approved License"? Isn't that hypocritical? If not, why not?
In my view, the OSI does have value, and "OSI Approved Licenses" are useful to know about, just like "FSF Approved Licenses" are good to know about... But they should not pretend to own language and have trademark on "Open Source" when the USPTO denied them a trademark:
Also, there is extensive documented "prior to 1998" use of the term "open-source" meaning exactly "the opposite of closed-source", rather than someones ideological checklist:
You are exactly correct about this.
1. Open-Source is a "Marketing Program for Free-Software". You describe yourself as having the "free-software" world view (which I describe as an anti-developer property worldview).
See: You can find OSI describe itself as a "Marketing Program for Free-Software" in their original FAQ: https://web.archive.org/web/20010406183942/http://opensource...
> The terms get harder because open/closed suggests straightforward opposites that partition all the options.
2. Again, you are exactly correct. By erroneously choosing term that is generic, that was already in use, and that can't be trademarked, the OSI set itself up for a loosing battle as "the universal standard" for what is not "closed-source".
GENERIC/DESCRIPTIVE: "We have discovered that there is virtually no chance that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office would register the mark “open source”; the mark is too descriptive. Ironically, we were partly a victim of our own success in bringing the “open source” concept into the mainstream. So “Open Source” is not and cannot become a trademark.
https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...
ALREADY IN USE: There are many documented uses of "open source" in relation to software that is not closed-source, going all the way back to 1985. https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html#pre-1998-usage
> But I'd characterize licenses like BSL and the Fair Source License as 'generous proprietary licenses with public source availability', but not open-source.
As a person with a self-defined affiliation with free-software, it makes complete sense that you would see it this way, but how many people outside of the free-software group see that? The further someone is from self-affiliation with "free-software" surely the less likely they are to agree with this terminology.
> I have a feeling that the term 'open-source' is more likely to erode than 'free software', in the coming decades. We'll see, I guess.
I 100% agree with you. The OSI postulates a union between the interests of people who release software into the public domain, and the interests of people like yourself who believe in Free-Software.
In my view, there is nothing uniting these two groups and the fracture is 100% inevitable. Even if your preferred term `source-available` were to gain widespread acceptance/use, there is no reason for independent developers to subsidize big business by making their source free to use for those big businesses, unless the developers ideologically agree with the tenants of the free-software movement. However, if the developers agreed with the free-software movement, they would choose a GPL style license, not a MIT/BSD/Apache style public domain license.