Thoughts on OSI, OSD and quasi-open source
Michael Tiemann's post titled Will the Real Open Source CRM Please Stand Up has re-opened that proverbial can of worms that is the debate over what the actual definition of open source is meant to include and exclude. However, I'll avoid jumping into the maelstrom by pontificating about who/what is or isn't open source by concentrating on what I consider to be the heart of the matter at hand: ideological differences within the open source software community. The reason I am resolving the seemingly certifiable dispute, regarding misuse of the term 'open source,' by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) is that the argument is taking place along the vaguely defined lines of terminology and its interpretation. Unfortunately, things based on similarly vague lines, ideas or thoughts don't tend to make for strong resolutions.
To be perfectly clear, I understand the logic behind OSI's claim of flagrant use of 'open source' without complying with the spirit of the Open Source Definition (OSD). However, the reality is that the OSI does not own a service mark on the term. Therefore, the OSI shouldn't feel that it has any legally granted prerogative to control the confines of its use. Obviously it would be totally unacceptable to proclaim a license as OSI-approved when in fact it isn't. However, simply applying a term which has already fallen into common use isn't the same, an action which actually falls within the category of fairness of use. At that point, talk about what the real open source is begins to look a bit trite.
Even if the OSI has reached a point where they've received enough external input to warrant making the assumption that the majority of the open source community only wants OSI-defined licenses, then perhaps their current perspective would be a tad bit more justifiable. However, I don't think this is the case at all, are OSI licenses preferred? Yes. Do they have added credibility because they are mandated by an independent body in the form of the OSI? Yes. Does that imply that there isn't space for other software distributed under licenses which contain certain elements of the OSD, but aren't recognized by the OSI, to be categorized under the umbrella that is open source? No, not at all. A working example is the term 'open standards,' which isn't trademarked and is applied just as, if not more, liberally than its mutual cousin 'open source.'
Michael Tiemann has stated that the process of becoming OSI-compliant is indeed open to all who are interest and the non-OSI licenses are free to submit for approval. Yet this doesn't address the originally outstanding fact that OSI-compliance still DOES NOT constitute legal barrier to using the term open source. Granted, there is a sense that the OSI holds sway over what is and is not considered 'pure open source,' but once again this is more agreed upon consensus, not to be confused with a legal or structural mandate. Meaning as long as the word mark for OSI approved license, isn't impeded upon...things are closer to fair game than anything else.
If the OSI really wants to defend its turf it can always proceed to construct (and consistently update) a comprehensive account of the open source which is in violation of its definition of open source, and promote this list to the general community. This will provide a facile manner of highlighting those who the OSI considers to be violators, because there obviously isn't an accord on the definition of such. Or perhaps the OSI could extend a quasi-approval to certain non-approved licenses as a supplement to their use of open source as a qualifier. Then again perhaps, this is a turf war that the OSI is looking for and actively embracing as time passes. Maybe they aren't interested in airing the differences and moving forward without drawing battle lines. Even if this is the case it still makes sense to build a stronger argument for the negative effects of the current state within industry.
Comments