DEV Community: AbcSxyZ

Evolution of the concept of open source

AbcSxyZ — Sat, 15 Jun 2024 10:13:42 +0000

Apart from the fact that the vast majority of people use it in this way, relatively nothing supports the idea that « open source » is a software topic.

We could be experiencing a paradigm shift in the meaning given to this concept, switching from software with an available source code to something around any type of digital resources whose sources are provided, in particular to enable modification.

From open source software to open source resources more broadly.

We see this terminology of "source(s)" being used to describe components from which resources are created, we see the notion of open source used outside of software to qualify their availability, and there is a tendency among a number of open source (software) specialists to agree that the use of the term outside software makes sense, in relatively unanimous terms.

« Open source » beyond software is already an existing reality.

We then have two coexisting meanings, between the more conventional one and the new one more restricted to specialised environments.

This makes it harder to know what open source truly is, it makes it harder to explain what it is, a concept that remains very vague and undetermined.

For the past month, discussions have been taking place with The Turing Way community about this confusion surrounding open source, to highlight this debate and see how it can be addressed in the book if appropriate.

Debates ensue as to whether we should follow a more conventional meaning or the more exotic one supported by experts, about whether to continue to introduce this as a software subject or not, about whether we are really facing an evolution of the concept or if new words are missing, the potential utility of this semantic evolution.

It's about introducing a contentious concept in evolution that we barely understand on top of political dissensus with people who have strong opinions and beliefs.

There is an ongoing discussion to create a new chapter for an Open Source (Re)Definition: https://github.com/the-turing-way/the-turing-way/pull/3705

See also the preview of the page proposal for open source: https://deploy-preview-3705--the-turing-way.netlify.app/reproducible-research/open/open-source

Open source could take on a new meaning that could render current conventions obsolete.

The open source image ?

AbcSxyZ — Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:25:54 +0000

With the resource printed, I went to an open source event to ask this question to open source professionals: is it open source ?

« An image being open source is not something I already considered », « Interesting question », « I sometimes have to fight with my colleagues when they share their pdf with me to get them to share the source with me ». [approximate quotations from memory]

« Is that metaverse? » (or « it's a bit meta », I can't remember precisely)

With an intent to consider the meaning of open source beyond software, the approach was simply to show them the image and, in a reflexive way, let them tell me whether it was open source or not. Usually done with a small group of people.

After some debate about the right to use logos, the question was all about the availability of sources through this QR code. It brings to the web page presenting the workshop of the image itself: https://open-source-undefined.org/workshops/image/open-source-image.html

I asked between 10 and 15 people and nobody automatically replied that it was open source.

After the discussions, nobody told me that it wasn't open source. The majority said yes, a few undecideds. It looks like an open source resource.

From this unexpected format, this challenged their conception of what open source is. The experiment raises a number of questions on the knowledge that open source professionals can have about open source.

It was a very interesting workshop to do, particularly from an (open) educational point of view. First, it could be used in this type of setting. People seemed to appreciate the reflection and the approach, being active in the process, without even realizing that they were undergoing some kind of training.

More entertaining than just explanations on open source resources, it even creates some discussions afterwards.

If you might be interested in the OER, there are ideas for improvements, I think it could be interesting to develop it: https://github.com/Open-Models/Open-Source-Undefined/issues/21

It may have planted a few seeds that could follow them every time they talk about open source.

I went to an open source event to ask what open source was, but obviously it wasn't clear to them either. According to them, I would have made open source with this image.

This would mean that you could do open source without knowing how to program, and without even working on software.

This image, open source or not open source ? And even further, an open source educational resource?

« Open Source », an undefined concept

AbcSxyZ — Sat, 03 Feb 2024 13:54:38 +0000

« Open source » is a confusing notion as it remains undefined. Its meaning has never really been considered, the word being adopted in 1998 in the face of the confusion factor coming from "free software".

Today, no definition that fully captures the phenomenon has been thought of. When the term was adopted, nobody tried to understand what it meant to open a source for digital technologies.

Some may argue that there is the Open Source Definition.

The word « open source » was formalized during a meeting, then the Debian Free Software Guidelines were debranded, generalized and renamed to the Open Source Definition.

There has been no real process to analyse the meaning of the term through descriptive linguistics, to try to get the entire essence of the word.

Born following the theorization of collaborative practices in the Cathedral and the Bazaar, this Open Source "Definition" do not even mention collaboration.

They were already aware of the use of « open source » outside of software, in the intelligence community notably, but this "Open Source Definition" not mention anything outside software source code.

It's definitely Orwellian, but the Open Source Definition was not an attempt to define open source, it's more a misleading set of licence criteria.

The concept having matured 25 years along with the democratization of digital technology, its meaning becomes more complex over the years.

Basically, in relation to other openness movements, is « Open Source » more about source code of software or source of digital resources ?

Because of the Open Source Definition, some believe it's a defined concept. In reality, the definition process never truly began.

Without any real definition, the concept remains unclear and the confusion ends up being everywhere. I try to navigate in this confusion accompanied by constant doubt.

« Open Source Undefined: Overview of the Digital Bazaar » is a project to report this state of open source and to try to capture the different dimensions of the concept: open-source-undefined.org

« Open source » is a concept that needs to be defined, notably to reduce open source confusion factors.

No one know what open source really is.

Image: Uday Mittal, Unsplash

Open Source Meaning: post-2000 evolutions

AbcSxyZ — Wed, 31 Jan 2024 19:46:21 +0000

Since 2000, the meaning given to « open source » is moving towards new steps by the diversification of code sharing practices and the development of other open movements.

Back from its formalization in 1998, « open source » was associated with the idea of sharing software with its source code without restrictions, following the « Open Source Definition » adopted by the Open Source Initiative.

Different approach of code sharing exists since early days of computers and more of them are flourishing over the time for a variety of motivations with the democratization of « open source ». In some extent, limitations near an available source code have been around since a really long time through a traditional use of licenses.

Following the open source movement, Microsoft launched the Shared Source Initiative in 2001 to show that they are fine with collaboratives practices around Microsoft product. (Or how to treat linux as a cancer and create FUD while mimicking their practices.)

An approach with the code open is seen increasingly as viable for business but with now open source companies struggling with GAFAM monopolies using non-competitive licensing, open resources sustain also evil so the realisition of problems generated by openness lead to an ethical movement with potentialy usage restrictions.

Around this idea of source sharing being (re)popularized for different typologies of players, philosophies vary.

What is then « open source » when sources are being open in these heteroclite manners ? The question has been growing for the past 20 years, and political split around it appear with initiatives like the Organization for Ethical source created in december 2020.

The language becomes a place of conflict, used as a barrier between these philosophies: source available, ethical source, shared source, post-open source, fauxpen source... Contested words for overlapping ideas with open source remaining the main umbrella.

Within software communities, the notion of « open source » is challenged. By the end of 90' and early 2000', other open movement arrived, with open hardware (1997), open content and education (1998~2002), the Open Access/Science movement affirmed in 2002-2003 with Budapest, Berlin and Bethesda declarations and so on.

New kind of digital resources being shared openly, where there are challenges around sources of resources to enable modifications.

Arrived and thought within the software world, it's slowly becoming something else not only associated to software "source code".

Having matured for 25 years, « open source » is evolving and is being redefined over the years in this post-2000s era.

[Publication related to the project open-source-undefined.org and work on history]

Image: Toa Heftiba, Unsplash

Open source: prescriptive VS descriptive definition

AbcSxyZ — Tue, 30 Jan 2024 13:20:48 +0000

The notion of open source is constantly being shaped. A word that is constantly being defined in relation to the reality it seeks to describe.

Words rarely have a single meaning and sense in which everyone agrees. Word meanings are contextual, varying from one social group to another.

There are different social groups using the term « open source », each of them giving a different interpretation, more or less compatible, transforming its signification over the time.

We have at least the following social groups:

The liberal and strict approach of the Open Source Initiative (OSI) and the Open Source Definition, first to formalize (≠ origin) the term.
Those unfamiliar with this Open Source Definition, who see open source mainly as a matter of making sources freely available, without any particular licensing rules. The largest group, and in this respect one of the most important to shape the notion.
Ethical or business actors, which may restrict some use in contradiction to the Open Source Definition and the first social group.
People considering open source beyond software, around the availability of sources for digital resources.

Interpretations that sometimes become conflicting, where some reject the other's approach as being about « open source » but where everyone uses the notion anyway.

If a social group continues with the wording in a way denied by others, the meanings will not be universal but with its variations. Words depend first and foremost on popular usage.

We can see that some people are trying to impose the meaning they consider appropriate, a meaning sometimes not accepted and deliberately rejected. Then, the popular usage will remain, with easy support of the biggest group with very flexible criteria.

Words can't be imposed, and definition are regular sources of conflict.

You can have descriptive or prescriptive definition, a definition based on the popular usage or to specify the meaning considered to be correct. The prescriptive approach may be really frequently broken, the « descriptive grammars precede prescriptive grammars: a language needs to be carefully and thoroughly studied and described before any sort of prescriptions can be formulated. »

« A lack of adherence to a prescriptive grammar can – and often does – have social repercussions that are typically socially or opinion-based ».

The open source movement has a definition that it seeks to prescribe from a very little-thought-out and constructed definition, causing social problems in a fight certainly destined to fail for linguistic reasons.

Being a prescriptivist, even more on a poorly crafted definition, seems risky and easily problematic.

The open source movement needs linguists! Organisations which aim to define a widely used word without any of them will probably cause undesired damage ?

The notion of « open source » does not have a fixed meaning and is being socially shaped. The project open-source-undefined.org push for a descriptive approach.

Sources: Descriptive versus Prescriptive Grammar, Eli Hinkel

Open Source (re)definition

AbcSxyZ — Mon, 29 Jan 2024 13:27:38 +0000

Is « open source » more about open source software or open source resources ? It's unclear, and this distinction may change deeply the meaning and the scope of « open source ».

« Open Source Undefined: Overview of the Digital Bazaar » is a project to build a knowledge base to try to consider this kind of unanswered questions: open-source-undefined.org

Today, open source starts to be everywhere with digital technologies, but we don't know what it means precisely. Software or not only ? Could it reject collaboration ? Does it include resources (or software) with usage restrictions ?

The meaning of « open source » vary and is subjective, between popular and conventional usage, between the different visions that run through the phenomenon and its angles still little considered.

Because this idea of « open source » is being democratized, the confusion surrounding open source meaning too.

Open source become hard to explain, you may have experienced it yourself. Open source is then introduced in an incomplete or confusing way because our global understanding of open source is incomplete and confusing.

The goal of open-source-undefined.org is to produce a knowledge base, a tool to be able to explain and understand « open source » more broadly for people who need it. For computer scientists and students, for trainer or researchers to manage their digital resources, for various actors who may need to care about sources of their digital resources and try to benefit of these openness practices.

Built in relation with the educational work on open models (open science, open education, open software, open hardware...) to both try to clarify open source to be able to explain « open source » and to raise awareness on challenges surrounding digital sources outside of software.

To help this notion transcend the world of software, making it an entry point to open models and their resources.

A knowledge base to fuel a debate to shape the meaning of open source and to provide an understanding of this vague idea. A first ongoing work is around the open source history: https://open-source-undefined.org/content/history.html

What is open source ? It seems important to ask the question to realize that we don't have the answer.

Open source is being (re)defined. And this could raise issues as profound as how to conduct science.

Image: Ahmed Zayan, Unsplash

Open Source History, a Computing History

AbcSxyZ — Sat, 27 Jan 2024 16:29:26 +0000

« Open Source » is a confusing notion because it's loaded with multiple sense. A word that crystallizes an entire history, marked by every period in the history of computing.

An idea which may seems simply about source code sharing that contain in reality more than 70 years of exploration into the collaborative capabilities of digital technologies.

An overview of the history is key to try to understand what is « open source » and to embrace digital collaboration potential, an important component to demystify the notion for the knowledge base « Open Source Undefined: Overview of the Digital Bazaar ».

There is a draft plan with some key dates and elements, while thinking of aspects to transmit to try to consider the pedagogical dimension of the knowledge base: https://open-source-undefined.org/content/history.html

While trying to provide an understanding of source (code) sharing and digital collaboration practices over the time, the goal would be to balance with insight on computer history next to social and economical dynamics which are all shaping the phenomenon.

Current structure basis

From 40' to 60':

Beginning of computer and software industry, code shared was the norm with (big !) devices until 1969 IBM's software unbundling. Already nascent "open" collaboration with Grace Hopper near 1953, showing the origins of this type of practices.

From 70' to 90':

Beginning of software industry for more mass market microcomputers (Microsoft created in 1975), copyright application and closure of the code for business purposes. Intentionalization of code sharing through free software movement and Stallman in 80', theorization of mass collaboration practices through the Cathedral and the Bazaar by Eric Raymond leading to the term « open source » in late 90'.

From 2000 till now:

To show open source ubiquity in modern software, its normalisation and the growing diversity of source sharing and collaboration practices, to provide some understanding of the state of « open source » in software and beyond ?

The challenge will be to highlight the origin of the concept to fuel a debate on its confusing meaning, while providing a broader knowledge of « open source ». One complexity is that the hole story relate to how computers worked initially, how the digital world and software industry evolve through their worldwide democratisation, everything being intertwined.

Open Source become difficult to grasp because it's many ideas at once, varying from one person to another, from one era to another.

How to explain « open source », why, to whom ? Any key elements to suggest or some angle to consider ?

There are various resources collected related in a Zotero (public) library to prepare this history, any good documents to suggest? https://www.zotero.org/groups/5352918/open_source_undefined/collections/M3IW7DUY

Image: Grace Hopper, creator of one of the first programming languages.

Is « open source » not about software ?

AbcSxyZ — Mon, 22 Jan 2024 16:28:29 +0000

Is « open source » not about software ? Being more related to sources of digital resources. It remains unclear where this idea of « open source » seems appropriate.

Initially, « open source » is derived from « source code » and born around software, emerging mainly in 1998. But the question is, does this idea of « source » may be meaningful outside of software.

In some regards, it has always been the case. Eric Raymond, a major figure of the open source movement, wrote in his article « Goodbye, "free software"; hello, "open source" » : « Yes, we're aware of the specialized meaning "open source" has in the intelligence community. This is a feature, not a bug. » [http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html]

« Source » is then taking another meaning than « source code », around freely accessible information for intelligence work. The OSINT movement is not the lonely place where some people are speaking about some sort of sources.

It's used in hardware, one main initiative is called the Open Source Hardware Association: « The hardware’s source, the design from which it is made, is available in the preferred format for making modifications to it.» [https://www.oshwa.org/definition/]

A source may become a documentation from which a (physical) artifact is created.

You can have some sort of sources with educational resources too. In open education, people usually speak about Open Educational Resources (OER). In an article, some authors were proposing the idea of Open Source Educational Resource (OSER) to put an emphasis on OER with their source available. [https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.14330]

You can have the pdf only (in "open access" ?), but you can have all source used to generate it, in part to enable modification of resources by external people.

For the project open-source-undefined.org, to contribute to the debate on « open source » meaning with educational intent, you have both the website and raw markdown files of its content, its sources on GitHub.

In 2006, following the arrival of Creative Commons was launched the « Definition of Free Cultural Works », they specify a section around « Availability of source data »: « Where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of a source file or multiple source files, all underlying source data should be available alongside the work itself under the same conditions. » [https://freedomdefined.org/Definition]

The idea of « source » next to more final resources seems to make sense in various ways around digital technologies. Is « open source » something around the availability of these different types of digital sources ?

Is « open source » limited to software ? Probably not. If « open source » is not only about software, then using « open source » to refer to software become confusing.

Image: Kenny Eliason, Unsplash

Open Source Confusion by Open Source Actors

AbcSxyZ — Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:38:26 +0000

The meaning of « open source » is being debated from a variety of different angles. There are various writings by people who, after years of working in the field, begin to question its sense.

It's not because you work in « open source » that you're not confuse by what is.

In February 2012, people in GitHub were wondering what it means. Hackeed was asking on Twitter about a software managed by Microsoft under an open license. Is it open source when the code is freely available but produced in a closed environment ?

For him, it was naturally open source, but people were disagreeing. He faced the implicit collaboration embedded in the idea of open source.

« What is the spirit of open source ? » : https://haacked.com/archive/2012/02/22/spirit-of-open-source.aspx/

Ben Balter, Director of Engineering Operations and Culture at GitHub, went to similar questioning by rebounding on the writings of Hackeed, but also reach this idea of open source outside of software: « What happens when there is no source versus binary? What does open source data look like? Open source content? Open source law? What happens when there is no OSI-approved license, because the thing I’m sharing simply isn’t code. ».

« Open source, not just software anymore »: https://ben.balter.com/2014/01/27/open-collaboration/

To define what is open source, one dominant approach is to refer to the Open Source Initiative (OSI) and its Open Source "Definition" (OSD). In an "affirmation of the Open Source Definition", they compare themselves (modestly) to the kilogram as reference unit. [https://blog.opensource.org/osd_affirmation/]

The OSI claim that « We define Open Source », claiming sometimes to say what is open source or not, with a community to enforce this idea. It's a source of heat debate as they require people to set no restrictions on their license where some people want to add some (like for business or ethical reasons).

Then, there are debates to know if the OSI is the only organisation who can set the limit between open source or not.

Kyle E. Mitchell, a lawyer, come with an article « “Open Source” Is Nobody’s Property » [https://writing.kemitchell.com/2020/05/11/Open-Source-Property], explaining that the trademark is not registered with « open source » being part of our common language.

The OSD enforcement is part of endless debates, disagreements and novice surprise. Martin Tournoij wrote « Let’s not be pedantic about “Open Source” » specifying « Whether you like it or not for many people – especially those not deeply invested in the entire movement – Open Source means “there is access to the source code in some way” » [https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html]

One thing they identify in their journey: there's different interpretation of « open source ».

You can find other people thoughts across the internet at open-source-undefined.org, a place to contribute to this debate on the meaning of « open source »: https://open-source-undefined.org/resources/open-source-reflections.html

Project proposal: « Open Source Undefined - Overview of the Digital Bazaar »

AbcSxyZ — Wed, 17 Jan 2024 15:53:54 +0000

What is « open source » ? It depends on who answers. Proposal of the project « Open Source Undefined: Overview of the Digital Bazaar » to explore this complex question.

Initial project proposal: https://github.com/Open-Models/Brique/discussions/442
Project website: open-source-undefined.org

A project for building a knowledge base on this confusing and controversial notion to fuel the debate on the meaning of « open source ».

There are many confusion factors with this concept: Is it about the sharing of source code only or collaboration is part of it ? Are licences necessary ? Is it something about software or related to the source of digital resources ? Where is the boundary between open and closed ? Is the Open Source Definition a definition of open source ?

Confusion factors leading to conflictual situations and divergent interpretations. So the answers on the meaning of open source differ.

Clear and exhaustive answers don't seem to exist: is open source still undefined ?

We don't know, we're not sure, there are disagreements, this seems to be potential answers on the meaning of open source. Clarifying the imprecision is perhaps the most precise way to fully understand the concept.

The intent with the project is to gather knowledge, resources and reflections to discuss and to grasp the meaning of open source with and for people facing this confusion, a work at the intersection of research and education.

An attempt to build robust knowledge on the meaning of « open source », to provide an open resource to understand this idea of open source.

The content section is still empty, but you can find some resources for now:

Article curation around people’s reflections on open source meaning: https://open-source-undefined.org/resources/open-source-reflections.html
A Zotero library to store articles (~180 resources actually): https://www.zotero.org/groups/5352918/open_source_undefined/library

With the democratisation of open source comes the democratisation of the confusion surrounding open source, let's try to build a tool to fill some of the gap.

Why questioning the meaning of open source matters? We may be considering almost nothing of what open source could be, profoundly limiting our ability to use and collaborate with digital technologies.

Do we still don't know what open source could be?

Open Source Confusion

AbcSxyZ — Thu, 04 Jan 2024 13:19:23 +0000

Is the concept of open source unclear to you? People in open source are confused too. With its democratisation and the absence of appropriate definition, even specialists are wondering what it means.

There is a variety of interpretations for the notion of open source. It's very likely that the person you're talking to won't have the same one. Open is a vague term, but so is source.

Within the notion of «open source», you have a literal meaning about sources availability, a kind of conventional meaning suggested by the (controversial) Open Source Initiative (OSI), some potential implicit such as the (open) collaboration dimension, mixed with the idea that "source" may be broader than software in digital resources.

Depending on the background, the meaning of open source will be a mix of these various elements.

You end up with some folks sharing their content with sources under open license with restriction believing that collaboration is embedded in the notion, those better informed (≠ right) who don't recognise this as open source because it doesn't meet the OSI's licensing criteria, or you can have the company who absolutely don't care about collaboration just releasing resources under conventional open license.

Multiple and contradictory interpretations, causing a great deal of misunderstanding.

We can witness a growing number of people trying to understand open source and raise this ambiguity.

Around this implicit collaboration, some people try to distinguish between «the letter of the law» and the «spirit of the law», the open source [artifact] and the open collaboration: https://haacked.com/archive/2012/02/22/spirit-of-open-source.aspx/

Others could debate on the fact that open source may not be about software despite we commonly link open source to software. «Open source, not just software anymore»: https://ben.balter.com/2014/01/27/open-collaboration/

We're having a confusing term with multiple meanings composed of polysemous words.

To claim that there is no definition is in fact blasphemy for part of the open source community, as there is a set of license criteria called the Open Source Definition (OSD), hosted by the OSI.

In fact, this pseudo-definition probably adds to the confusion. While claiming to define open source, it says nothing about collaboration or anything other than software.

The OSD define a really strict set of license, without restrictions. Carefree people leaving their resources and their sources online, thinking it's open source but being told that it's not. Passionate debates where it's explained that when you open a source, it's not open source.

The meaning of open source is claimed to be defined by the Open Source Initiative, enforced by some folks, contested elsewhere. “Open Source” Is Nobody’s Property: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2020/05/11/Open-Source-Property

Several layers of confusion with a conflict on top, the important thing is to understand that we don't understand. Confusion is normal, clarity is suspicious.

Open Source challenges with knowledge

AbcSxyZ — Wed, 03 Jan 2024 15:02:35 +0000

Outside of fighting against the poorly named Open Source Definition and their gatekeepers, what are important challenges in open source? Most people still can't open their sources and collaborate on them, most people still don't consider them when sharing resources.

We lack tools and infrastructure to share resources and their sources appropriately, it is a considerable barrier to collaboration and reusability in most areas.

In open education people do not really consider the release of their sources with open educational resources (OER), platforms focus more on end resources such as the pdf. In a platform like LibreTexts, there is no way to suggest basic modification through some sort of pull request.

Hard to find collaborative platforms to develop OER, people ending up on software forge like GitHub which creates huge entry barriers.

Despite the right given by open licenses, it would be hard for trainers and teachers to modify OER without sources. There is no accessible way to collaborate on open source educational resources for teachers and trainers.

More broadly, we have no accessible and versionable tools for text collaboration.

The lack of infrastructure to host sources appropriately which could enable collaboration is mostly the same for all open models such as in open hardware or open science.

In science, you still don't have the technical ability to build on top of each other work partly because of this lack of control over sources. Science standards are still poor, they are using pdf.

We deeply lack open software which are enabler of openness in these various fields, infrastructure becoming increasingly an important topic. Next to it, culture and skills improvements should favor more mature approaches.

What are challenges for open source ? At least to help science and education to embrace digital technologies and this ability to use, modify and share resources.

The challenge of the knowledge.

Outside of it, led by the Open Source Initiative, there are important concerns within the open source community to defend the Open Source Definition in order to protect evil usage and the ability of big corp to take resources destructively from smaller companies.

Please reject people who try to bring ethics and protect themselves against big monopolies, a major cause to keep open source spirit and beauty ❤️

We can rely on the Open Source Initiative to be the word police with all the accuracy of a brave policeman, in parallel it might be interesting to have an organisation to help develop open source to support science and education.

P.S.: Open source have been used in the broad sense of "sources of digital resources", not restricted to a tiny percentage of open source resources with libertarian licensing inside software only.