Slashdot Mirror
'How I Coined the Term Open Source' (opensource.com)
Today is the 20th anniversary of the phrase "open source software," which this article says was coined by the executive director of the Foresight Institute, a nonprofit think tank focused on nanotech and artificial intelligence. The phrase first entered the world on February 3rd, 1998, according to Christine Peterson:
Of course, there are a number of accounts of the coining of the term, for example by Eric Raymond and Richard Stallman, yet this is mine, written on January 2, 2006. It has never been published, until today. The introduction of the term "open source software" was a deliberate effort to make this field of endeavor more understandable to newcomers and to business, which was viewed as necessary to its spread to a broader community of users... Interest in free software was starting to grow outside the programming community, and it was increasingly clear that an opportunity was coming to change the world... [W]e discussed the need for a new term due to the confusion factor. The argument was as follows: those new to the term "free software" assume it is referring to the price. Oldtimers must then launch into an explanation, usually given as follows: "We mean free as in freedom, not free as in beer." At this point, a discussion on software has turned into one about the price of an alcoholic beverage...
Between meetings that week, I was still focused on the need for a better name and came up with the term "open source software." While not ideal, it struck me as good enough. I ran it by at least four others: Eric Drexler, Mark Miller, and Todd Anderson liked it, while a friend in marketing and public relations felt the term "open" had been overused and abused and believed we could do better. He was right in theory; however, I didn't have a better idea... Later that week, on February 5, 1998, a group was assembled at VA Research to brainstorm on strategy. Attending -- in addition to Eric Raymond, Todd, and me -- were Larry Augustin, Sam Ockman, and attending by phone, Jon "maddog" Hall... Todd was on the ball. Instead of making an assertion that the community should use this specific new term, he did something less directive -- a smart thing to do with this community of strong-willed individuals. He simply used the term in a sentence on another topic -- just dropped it into the conversation to see what happened.... A few minutes later, one of the others used the term, evidently without noticing, still discussing a topic other than terminology. Todd and I looked at each other out of the corners of our eyes to check: yes, we had both noticed what happened...
Toward the end of the meeting, the question of terminology was brought up explicitly, probably by Todd or Eric. Maddog mentioned "freely distributable" as an earlier term, and "cooperatively developed" as a newer term. Eric listed "free software," "open source," and "sourceware" as the main options. Todd advocated the "open source" model, and Eric endorsed this... Eric Raymond was far better positioned to spread the new meme, and he did. Bruce Perens signed on to the effort immediately, helping set up Opensource.org and playing a key role in spreading the new term... By late February, both O'Reilly & Associates and Netscape had started to use the term. After this, there was a period during which the term was promoted by Eric Raymond to the media, by Tim O'Reilly to business, and by both to the programming community. It seemed to spread very quickly.
Peterson remembers that "These months were extremely exciting for open source," adding "Every week, it seemed, a new company announced plans to participate. Reading Slashdot became a necessity, even for those like me who were only peripherally involved. I strongly believe that the new term was helpful in enabling this rapid spread into business, which then enabled wider use by the public."
Wikipedia notes that Linus Torvalds endorsed the term the day after it was announced, that Phil Hughes backed it in Linux Journal, and that Richard Stallman "initially seemed to adopt the term, but later changed his mind."
Between meetings that week, I was still focused on the need for a better name and came up with the term "open source software." While not ideal, it struck me as good enough. I ran it by at least four others: Eric Drexler, Mark Miller, and Todd Anderson liked it, while a friend in marketing and public relations felt the term "open" had been overused and abused and believed we could do better. He was right in theory; however, I didn't have a better idea... Later that week, on February 5, 1998, a group was assembled at VA Research to brainstorm on strategy. Attending -- in addition to Eric Raymond, Todd, and me -- were Larry Augustin, Sam Ockman, and attending by phone, Jon "maddog" Hall... Todd was on the ball. Instead of making an assertion that the community should use this specific new term, he did something less directive -- a smart thing to do with this community of strong-willed individuals. He simply used the term in a sentence on another topic -- just dropped it into the conversation to see what happened.... A few minutes later, one of the others used the term, evidently without noticing, still discussing a topic other than terminology. Todd and I looked at each other out of the corners of our eyes to check: yes, we had both noticed what happened...
Toward the end of the meeting, the question of terminology was brought up explicitly, probably by Todd or Eric. Maddog mentioned "freely distributable" as an earlier term, and "cooperatively developed" as a newer term. Eric listed "free software," "open source," and "sourceware" as the main options. Todd advocated the "open source" model, and Eric endorsed this... Eric Raymond was far better positioned to spread the new meme, and he did. Bruce Perens signed on to the effort immediately, helping set up Opensource.org and playing a key role in spreading the new term... By late February, both O'Reilly & Associates and Netscape had started to use the term. After this, there was a period during which the term was promoted by Eric Raymond to the media, by Tim O'Reilly to business, and by both to the programming community. It seemed to spread very quickly.
Peterson remembers that "These months were extremely exciting for open source," adding "Every week, it seemed, a new company announced plans to participate. Reading Slashdot became a necessity, even for those like me who were only peripherally involved. I strongly believe that the new term was helpful in enabling this rapid spread into business, which then enabled wider use by the public."
Wikipedia notes that Linus Torvalds endorsed the term the day after it was announced, that Phil Hughes backed it in Linux Journal, and that Richard Stallman "initially seemed to adopt the term, but later changed his mind."
It is interesting. I would have thought it was much older than 1998. There is indeed a big difference between Free software (a term coined in 1985) and open Source software. The term"free software" was always a hard sell as people would associate it with "gratis" rather than "libre". The term "open source" has it better from from that point of view. Still, it is not the same. While one can not imagine free software without having the code open, it is possible that maybe through patents, open source is not free. The definition given by the Gnu foundation makes this clear: "Open source is a term for developers, while free software is an ethical imperative". It might be necessary keep both terms: Free and open source (FOSS). I for myself always understood "Free software" already as "free and open source software". But the addition "open" makes sense in order not to get the "cheap" association.
For anyone who has any doubt about this claim:
Here's the truth: https://web.archive.org/web/19...
We brainstormed about tactics and a new label. `Open source', contributed by Chris Peterson, was the best thing we came up with.
I remember when the guys (Larry, Eric, etc..) came out of the room from this meeting. Eric was telling me about this newly coined phrase "Open Source". Chris DiBona and I'm not sure if Joe was there... several other guys too. It was really a great time to be alive and for me, being a fly on the wall.... it was amazing. The Feb 98 meeting is the first time I heard the term "Open Source" and I'm inclined to believe that was it's birth. Not sure about anything else.
geeky stuff I'm proud to have been a part of: linux.com / themes.org / sourceforge.net / sicnus.com
I'm the one who first coined the term, "RAM" to describe random access memory. It took me weeks to come up with it. Finally, after drinking half a bottle of absinthe, one night I had a dream about having sex with a sheep and...VOILA!...it came to me. RAM. Yep, that was all me.
You are welcome on my lawn.
For anyone who has any doubt about this claim:
Here's the truth:
Caldera Announces Open Source for DOS, Sept. 10, 1996. There, FTFY. I know people have become a bit tired of me harping on about this, but the fact is that the phrase "Open Source" was in well-established usage years before any of these people claim to have invented it. And what's more, all of them should know it. Caldera didn't invent the term either! It was already in common use among internet-savvy programmer types when Caldera used it! "Open" has been used to describe the interoperability of Unix systems since at least the 1980s, and the phrase "Open Source" was already being used around communities like Santa Cruz (where SCO was, hence the name) which were heavy on software developers to describe software whose source code you could get your hands on for free. If only Google hadn't completely neutered the search interface on Groups, I'm sure I could find more citations...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Are they arguing over who should get marketing props?
They are, and it's pathetic, because they are ignorant at best. My particular dog in this fight is not wanting the OSI to be in charge of what you can call Open Source. They wanted to be in charge of it before, their legal counsel advised them against it, and they decided against attempting to establish such a trademark. Hopefully that bird has already flown the coop, but self-aggrandizement like this could lead to actual attempts. I'm not trying to make myself look great, I'm trying to prevent a hijacking.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I prefer the term "open software".
Absent explanation, the term "open" in computing means interoperable. Since the eighties, Unix systems have been described as "open" due to their conformance to published standards.
The term "open source" on face value only implies "source available".
Yep. And that's all it means.
But I believe the most important feature of open software is that it allows people to create and distribute modified versions.
Nope. All it means is source code access. It doesn't imply the freedom to redistribute changed binaries, only patches.
"Open Source", as defined by OSI, should be capitalized, which it isn't in this summary.
The OSI does not get to define the phrase Open Source, because they did not invent it (not even, as they claim, pertaining solely to software!)
Yes, the term "Free Software" on face value only implies that one can use it without payment,
That's only if you hear "free" and automatically think "I don't have to pay". Some people hear "free" and think "not in bondage". In some countries, Free Software is called Software Libre, which suggests freedom. But "Open Source" is, frankly, an even worse term. You can construe that to mean basically anything — and the OSI is trying.
There are ways to licence software that, while its source can be viewed, modified, and re-published, requires payment for production use. I'd still call such packages "open software",
You can call them whatever you want, but if the users can get the sources, then they're Open Source by definition. Whose definition? The people who were using it as such before the OSI even existed. In fact, the people that the leading lights of the OSI certainly heard the phrase from, before they claim to have invented it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Google may have neutered the search interface, but it's still up to this particular job :
Just search for: "open source" before:1995/01/01
There's lots and lots of things that aren't what we're looking for -- but more than a few that are. Such as this from 1990 or this from 1989, or this from 1985, though this last one isn't about computer software -- but the idea is still very much the same.
You get the idea.
That 1985 reference is the earliest one I find in what Google has archived of Usenet.
What might you might need to reconsider is what matters most to you in this topic.
it's a shame it's now so difficult to find posts from Carl Lydick. They're good for countless hours of entertainment and enlightenment.
Absent explanation, the term "open" in computing means interoperable. Since the eighties, Unix systems have been described as "open" due to their conformance to published standards.
Few think that "open" means "open standard". Proprietary software that's interoperable because one can interface with a published API certainly isn't called "open".
The term "open source" on face value only implies "source available".
Yep. And that's all it means.
Uncapitalized and on face value yes. But the OSI definition includes the full libre criteria, and most developers now associate the uncapitalized term with this definition (even in this article).
But I believe the most important feature of open software is that it allows people to create and distribute modified versions.
Nope. All it means is source code access. It doesn't imply the freedom to redistribute changed binaries, only patches.
I'm not talking about terms and definitions here, but calling out what I see as the most important aspect of Free Software.
"Open Source", as defined by OSI, should be capitalized, which it isn't in this summary.
The OSI does not get to define the phrase Open Source, because they did not invent it (not even, as they claim, pertaining solely to software!)
OSI did invent the term "open source" as a more descriptive term than "free software" for MIT- and GPL-type licences. The article to which you linked found an earlier use of "open source" that only meant "source available". As I said above, "open source" now means more than this in most people's minds.
Yes, the term "Free Software" on face value only implies that one can use it without payment,
That's only if you hear "free" and automatically think "I don't have to pay". Some people hear "free" and think "not in bondage". In some countries, Free Software is called Software Libre, which suggests freedom. But "Open Source" is, frankly, an even worse term. You can construe that to mean basically anything — and the OSI is trying.
The ambiguity of "free" in English was a major reason for the introduction of the "Open Source" term by the OSI.
I first heard of the term "Open source" in the late 1980's in connection with a freely available dos game at time called Moria. To the best of my knowledge, it was the original author tgat used the term "open source" to describe the project and he was supposedly not involved in the project anymore by the time I heard of the game (1988 or so). I expect that the origins of the term might go back even further.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Wrong again. Caldera bought DR-DOS but soon realized it wasn't going to make any money due to the MS-DOS merger into Windows 95. So, Caldera sued Microsoft over it as this was during the same period as the whole MS/Netscape fight about comingling) and if nothing else MS might issue some sort of a payout (which ended up being a $280m out-of-court settlement in 2000).
Meanwhile, Caldera bought up several rights to various (but not all) SCO software/services in 2000. Caldera was already involved in the Linux scene, and presumably they thought they could leverage the SCO rights in some way (name recognition or something, perhaps). Unsurprisingly, this was not any real advantage as proprietary Unix was on the decline (just like Novell sold DR-DOS). So, Caldera changed its name to SCO and sued another major player in the Linux scene for copyright infringement.
In short, I'd almost call Caldera founded as a litigation whore. They bought up dead or dying OS, tried some to turn them around for a profit, but ended up really trying to just get as much money out of them by any means possible, including litigation and including very tenuous legal theories. At least with the Caldera vs Microsoft case, they showed Microsoft frequently lied about the degree of tie-in between MS-DOS and Windows*. With SCO Group (aka Caldera) vs IBM, it was purely a fishing expedition with innuendo.
PS - I used to cheer for Caldera back during the late 90s precisely because I had an old system where Windows 9x was not an option (well, not a good one, anyways), and their move to OpenDOS and generally having any sort of progress on that front was a positive to me. The whole Microsoft case was more icing on the cake.
* The stupidity to me was that Microsoft could have just been truthful and stated they wanted to merge the code bases to simplify their work. There was already some Windows reaching into DOS stuff in the Windows 3.x days (which is why DR-DOS and the like had to be patched). Their main choices were to (1) expose the functionality officially in MS-DOS to support Win 3.x (and then all the competitors would be able to duplicate it) even though that's a really ass-backwards development model; (2) basically make DOS32, a multitasking 32-bit DOS that had 16-bit VMs DoD (DOS on DOS), memory protection, hardware abstraction drivers, and generally all the stuff that made Win 9x Win 9x except the interface..and then make an interface on top of that exposing the features there; or (3) just accept that Windows was becoming THE interface for PCs and integrate DOS into it instead of trying to hack around all the ways in which keeping them separate would entail. In the end, they went with (3) even though it was basically (1) without documenting the changes (since they didn't really want to mess with DOS any more than they needed to).
Looking back, it's clear why (3) wasn't really some sort of monopolistic abuse (although before the actual merger, one could argue there might have been). There was clearly a major evolution taking place. Win9x wasn't just a thin GUI to running DOS VMs. It was a substantial API with a lot of programs being written for it (and all the 16-bit Win 3.x/2.x/1.x apps). In comparison, the browser still isn't an OS (although one can certainly make a whole OS around just it). So, hindsight tells where the difference is. In any case, it's not reasonable to run MS-DOS and DR-DOS at the same time under Windows. It is reasonable to run Netscape and Internet Explorer at the same time over Windows. So, any attempt to advantage or disadvantage one over the other outside the software itself by a monopoly is anti-competitive.