Hi Simon, And to add to Bryan's articulate observations, you stated:
> As "open source" is about source at first, the aim is to refocus the debate > on the availability of sources. I observe that open source is a philosophy not a technical approach. It is a philosophy that identifies that providing source code as publicly available results in code that is more secure, more maintainable, higher-quality and supports more innovation. I tell my students that when you work on open source, you are joining a community rather than working on a project. That the focus is on the culture, not the code. Just my 2 cents. Heidi On 5/19/26 10:06, Bryan G. Behrenshausen wrote: > The External Email below originated from outside the University. > Unless you recognize the sender, do not click links, open attachments, > or respond. > > > Hi Simon, > > Thanks for your response. I enjoyed reading it (even if I largely > disagree > with the direction of your argument). > > A have a few additional notes for you to consider as you work on your > paper. > > > "As creating new terminology is a well-established tradition in > disputes > > surrounding the meaning of open source, one might suggest doing so > here — > > yet we believe instead that along with the democratisation of other > openness > > movements we are witnessing the evolution of a concept that is, all > things > > considered, relatively new." > > I understand this point, surely; however I would also suggest that > "creating > new terminology in a well-established tradition" is not really what > you are > doing. You are seeking to enter into a well-established tradition and > re-define core concepts that practitioners have debated for decades, > and for > which they have developed a fairly specific working understanding. So I > suppose (as a thought experiment) I would ask: Why not actually take > the tack > you describe and coin a new term for what you are advocating, rather than > piggyback on a term with such a well-documented (and fraught, as you > note) > history? > > If this question sounds a bit defensive, I suppose that's because it > is. Those > of us who care deeply about open source (as a concept, as a political > philosophy, as an economic model, etc.) tend to be hyper-aware of > attempts to > shift and erode its meaning in ways that co-opt, undercut, and > occasionally > undermine the principles on which it is built (e.g., what's "open" about > OpenAI?). Some of us like to call it "open washing": the attempt to > use the > (again, as you note) definitionally slippery nature of "open" to advance > versions of the concept that do not account for some of the values and > principles open source practitioners advocate. So in response to this: > > > Like it or not, other movements are way more open regarding this > openness > > spectrum/degree of openness. I doubt it would be wise to carry over > these > > semantic conflicts emerging around the OSD into these other domains. > > I would simply emphasize that this is not _only_ a question of > semantics. It > is a question of semantics, for sure—a question of "what this thing > means and > doesn't mean"—but that meaning has real, effective, powerful > consequences for > how people are dis/empowered when they engage with the tools that > shape their > relationships to each other and the world. This is why the definition > of open > source matters so much to those of us who have invested years of our > lives and > careers in it. > > Just a technical note here: > > > Because the core of these notions is the availability of source > file/code, > > all of these terminologies are confusing and simply social > constructs around > > the OSD. Source available, based on the OSI view, is not really the > absence > > of ability to modify; it's restriction around it (unclear and undefined > > notion[s] anyway). > > This is not technically correct; you are conflating two tenets of the > OSD: > necessity of the ability to modify (and distribute) and necessity of > non-discrimination. For something to be open source, it must: > expressly grant > the right to modify and distribute derivative works (see criterion 3 > of the > OSD, *and* not restrict usage based on, e.g. "field of endeavor"—see > criteria > 5 and 6 of the OSD). > > > As "open source" is about source at first, the aim is to refocus the > debate > > on the availability of sources. > > I understand your aim here, but again I will (hopefully as gently as > possible) > suggest that this is not, in my view, a very productive move. It > siphons key > values from the current working definition of open source (ability to > share > modifications, restrictions on discrimination). See my notes above > about the > importance of retaining these dimensions of the definition. > > > And like with software, we see this similar pattern between the > editable > > format and its rendered/compiled/compressed one. > > Yes, this is true for sure. But it is a case of necessary and sufficient > conditions. The availability of (editable) source code is a necessary > condition for something to be considered open source, but that > criterion alone > it is not sufficient for meeting the definition. Open source is much > more a > legal and political designation (an issue of licensing and rights) than a > technical one (the presence of source and binary), though of course it > is both > of these. > > > But what if sources are released without granting these rights, I'm > not sure > > what should be said and this ambiguity is intentional to allow these > debates > > to take shape. > > There is no ambiguity here with respect to the OSI and the OSD. If > source code > is released without the concomitant ability to modify and subsequently > distribute those modifications, or with the provisions that would > restrict how > the software is used, then it is not open source. It is "source > available" at > best. > > I hope these notes are useful to your continued research. > > Bryan > _______________________________________________ > tos mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.teachingopensource.org/mailman/listinfo/tos > TOS website: http://teachingopensource.org/ _______________________________________________ tos mailing list [email protected] https://lists.teachingopensource.org/mailman/listinfo/tos TOS website: http://teachingopensource.org/
