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.
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.'"
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.