The Open Source Initiative did not coin the term "Open Source" and why that's important
![[PNG] OSI "I Made This" meme](http://zelena.flounder.online/gemlog/2024-07-16_The_Open_Source_Initiative_Did_Not_Coin_Open_Source/i_made_this_meme_osi_open_source.png)
The people of the Open Source Initiative (OSI) have made claims multiple times that their group were the ones who invented the term "open source" when referring to software.
Christine Peterson makes this claim in an article published on RedHat's opensource.com by recalling from memory the story of how she believes she came to create it.
"How I coined the term 'open source'" by Christine Peterson
OSI co-founder Bruce Perens also claims to have created the term.
https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=239319&cid=19593809
Their Twitter description proudly claims "Yes, we coined the term!" Not specifying directly what they mean, but anyone reading this would assume they are referring to the term "open source".
Problem is, these claims are easily proven false.
Proving the claim is false
There exists multiple records of prior use of the phrase "open source" before the date they claim to have coined it.
In Christine's article, she claims to have coined the term in a meeting that happened on February 5th, 1998. Yet there's a record of registering the domain opensource.org (the OSI owned domain) on February 2nd, 1998, 3 days before the meeting. If her date is correct, then even within her own community, she was not the first.
https://lookup.icann.org/en/lookup
A quick look at Google's Ngram viewer shows that 1998 is about 4 years after the "open source" trend was starting to get popular.
Google Ngram Viewer search for "open source"
Let's go further back.
1996, OpenBSD released to the public, who's name was inspired by the term "open source". Caldera used the term Open Source to refer to their products.
http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html
1993, a Usenet user makes a post using the term Open Source, capitalized, no less, in a fashion demonstrating that it is already a widely adopted term.
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32/c/WoBvPB0U9Co/m/wXfpq5nEJTYJ
Credit to mark-t on Slashdot for pointing this out.
1984, Billy Joy, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, uses the term Open Source to refer to their code as an important business strategy.
Open source mentioned at around 13:50 in this 1984 episode of The Computer Chronicles about Unix
Wikipedia comment from drinkypoo who pointed out this source.
We don't need to go back any further. You get the point.
Why it matters
Why are the people at OSI so interested in claiming that they coined the term?
Simple. Control.
The OSI's purpose is to inject themselves into the already existing community to elect themselves as the ultimate authority of it and be the face to the media to control its narrative, usurping the Free Software Foundation. By claiming that they are responsible for the creation of Open Source, it implies that they have been there from the beginning, and that they have some important reputation in the community. People often assume that a creator should have full control over their work, even if that is referring to a community.
The OSI then use their artificially acquired authority to bully other projects into using business friendly licenses that they personally approve of. They have twisted the existing definition of open source to fit their own ideals, creating confusion in the community about the difference between open and libre software.
The OSI's Open Source Definition
Businesses feel a sense of entitlement to open source software. They want to take everything without compensating. Open source is free labor to them. Encouraging permissive licenses lets them have that. Businesses can claim they are being fair by allowing a business-friendly third-party be the authority on what licenses are or are not approved on a platform.
Netfly gives discounts to OSI approved licenses
Google Summer of Code only accepts organizations using an OSI approved license
https://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/archive/microsoft-censorship
The OSI absolutely do believe themselves to be an authority, making such claims as:
What a company may not do is claim or imply that software under a license that has not been approved by the Open Source Initiative, much less a license that does not meet the Open Source Definition, is open source software. It’s deception, plain and simple, to claim that the software has all the benefits and promises of open source when it does not.
Quote source, The OSI Board of Directors
In the Slashdot comment, Bruce Perens fully admits to it.
_can you explain exactly where you and the OSI get the authority to define what the words "open source" mean?_
How do you think new words happen? People define them. So, **I took that authority.** And I helped to build a community behind it. And IMO, that community has a really strong interest in making it clear that anything that does not comply with the Open Source Definition isn't Open Source at all.
Bruce
https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=239319&cid=19593809
There is a clear record in that thread of the community not agreeing with their self-proclaimed authority, and preferring the use of the original definition of open source.
Open source and free software has always belonged to the community first. The OSI members are trying to take it away. No one has to listen to the OSI on what is or is not considered open source software other than those who have chosen to be a part of the OSI.
I thoroughly reject any claims that the Open Source Initiative represents the open source, free software, and FLOSS communities in any capacity.
The OSI is not responsible for starting the free software movement. They are piggy-backing on the ideas popularized by Richard Stallman and a community created by ethical hackers. (I do not claim Stallman is responsible for creating open source/free software either. He is certainly responsible for creating many of the terms in use today and being the largest force of political action, but specific origins are difficult to pin down.)
The OSI was not created for the health of the free software community. It was created to steward it in a direction that is better for businesses to take advantage of. Their open source definition was created because they wanted pragmatic terms for business. They rejected the existing definition presented by Richard Stallman's Three Essential Freedoms (later Four Essential Freedoms) because they did not care for the moral side of free software.
GNU Article: The Four Essential Freedoms
Members new to the community will be looking for resources. The OSI has the money to promote themselves higher than other resources, meaning they will have control steering those new members towards more permissive licenses, promoting business rights above user rights.
They make dishonest statements in their FAQ such as:
**What is "free software" and is it the same as "open source"?**
"Free software" and "open source software" are two terms for the same thing: software released under licenses that guarantee a certain specific set of freedoms.
https://opensource.org/faq#free-software
I attribute the OSI as the primary cause for causing this confusion about what the distinction is. Let's clear things up real quick.
Open source software is any software where the source code is made available to the user. It does not release any rights related to the code, software, or patents. Open source software may also be proprietary software. Having access to source code does not automatically grant rights to use it, such as is in the case with source code leaks. Examples of open source software include VVVVVV and Spelunky.
VVVVVV, a proprietary open source project
Spelunky Classic, a proprietary open source project
Free software (also called libre software) is any software which grants its users software freedoms, the right to run, copy, modify, distribute, study, change, and improve the software. Doing so also requires that the source code be openly available.
Free software can be split into permissive and copyleft licenses.
- Permissive licenses are the least restrictive, allowing anyone access the project without restrictions. It can even be scooped up into a proprietary project for profit with no requirement to return anything.
Apache HTTP server, a permissively licensed (Apache license) free software project
- Copyleft licenses allow anyone access the project, provided they pay it forward by also making any of their changes available. There are no restrictions on how it can be used (including for profit) except for those that protect the rights of the users.
The Linux Kernel, a copyleft (GNU GPLv2) licensed free software project
All free software is open source software. Not all open source software is free software.
The OSI has gotten so far as to confuse government entities on the correct definitions, who cite the OSI's bad definition as their first resource.
https://dodcio.defense.gov/Open-Source-Software-FAQ/#defining-open-source-software-oss
(Note that the DoD defined their term in 2018, when the actual term is much older. This does not constitute proof that the OSI's definition is correct. The DoD's definition is for internal use and does not apply to court or other areas of law. It is merely an agreement on what the DoD means when they use the term "open source software".)
When a group is in a position to affect legal entities, they need to be heavily scrutinized. Being a non-profit does not absolve them of responsibility.
The term "source available" was created retroactively to patch this problem that the OSI created with their new definition. Before that Bruce Perens called it "Disclosed Source Code".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software
They love coming up with new terms to belittle licenses the don't like, such as "crayon license" (implying amateur) or "fauxpen license" (implying it's a fake).
Bruce Perens defines the term "crayon license".
https://www.fauxpensource.org/
https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/open-vs-fauxpen
The OSI includes GNU GPL family of licenses in their list of approved licenses, even though by their definitions, it should violate 2 points of the OSI's Open Source Definition; 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups, and 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor. They would call that a fauxpen license.
https://opensource.org/licenses
OSI co-founder Eric Raymond stated "We don't need the GPL anymore" in an interview
The reciprocity requirement of the GNU GPL licenses has been interpreted in other contexts as being discriminatory against businesses and commercialization. It's bad for commercialization if you are required to give your product away for free, and is thus, discriminatory towards commercial business. They are forced to include it in their list because there would have otherwise been a huge backlash from the FLOSS communities, tanking their credibility.
In reference to the Server Side Public License, which contains a reciprocity clause styled after the GNU Affero General Public License v3, Tom Callaway of Fedora's legal team had this to say:
It is the belief of Fedora that the SSPL is intentionally crafted to be aggressively discriminatory towards a specific class of users.
The OSI clearly agreed and went so far as to call it a proprietary license. They conflate quite dreadfully what is libre and what is commercial.
The Elastic projects were offered under the Apache license. Outside contributors donated time and energy with the understanding that their work was going towards the greater good, the public software commons. Now, instead, their contributions are embedded in a proprietary product. If they want to enjoy the fruits of their own and their co-contributors’ labor, they have to agree to a proprietary license or fork.
https://opensource.org/node/1099
No, the SSPL is not a proprietary license when anyone can still have open access to the source code, modify it, and use it with those modifications gratis (no monetary charge). The Apache License is the one that allows anyone to take their contributions and put it into proprietary projects. The OSI does not even understand how the licenses that they advocate for work. Only copyleft licenses protect the commons, because they limit rights that could be used for abuse. Limiting some rights is necessary for protecting other rights.
Server Side Public License (SSPL)
(Aside: The SSPL was created in an attempt to fix an oversight in the GNU AGPLv3 concerning Software as a Service. The real reason it should not be used is because it lacks well defined boundaries on what the user's rights are. Somehow RedHat's legal rep and the OSI members missed that while fixated on how bad it is for business. Consider using the European Union Public License instead, which has better defined rules about SaaS, or the Commons Clause if you wish to restrict commercial activity.)
For a business claiming to be so interested in open source, the OSI lack any presence on open source platforms. Their website links to their profiles on Twitter and LinkedIn, both proprietary platforms which benefit from extracting the value of open source software. Their own website is hosted on servers provided to them by DigitalOcean.
https://twitter.com/OpenSourceOrg
https://www.linkedin.com/company/open-source-initiative-osi-
The OSI's interests do not align with those of the community's, and as such, do not represent it.
Conclusions
No one in the Open Source Initiative coined the term "open source" first. They can't even keep their own internal story straight.
"Open source" has been in common use decades before conception of the Open Source Initiative.
The Open Source Initiative is lying about this to garner artificial control over the community through social status. (It *is* lying when they've been shown clear evidence contrary to their statements and they ignore it to continue stating it anyways.)
The Open Source Initiative has no authority or power over anyone. Businesses grant them power under their own domains.
The Open Source Initiative does not represent the open source, free software, or FLOSS communities in any way.
The activities of the Open Source Initiative are harmful to the communities and create confusion about real FLOSS terms.
Further Reading
Some other blogs have written about this topic too. They're worth a read.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200930174656/http://hyperlogos.org/blog/drink/term-Open-Source
https://lunduke.substack.com/p/who-really-coined-the-term-open-source
Richard Stallman explains his perspective of the rise of the OSI in opposition to the FSF.
"Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software" by Richard Stallman
The search for the true origin of the term "open source" is tricky and yields nothing.
Who Invented the Term 'Open Source'?
/gemlog/