> since that phrase wasn’t even coined until 1998.
This idea that Christine Peterson invented the term open source in 1998 is revisionist history. I personally remember the term being used during the early 90's, and here's a Usenet thread from 1990 that backs up my memory:
(The relevant text is a little way down in the thread: "BSD's open source
policy meant that user developed software could be ported among
platforms...")
Heck, here's a Caldera press release from 1996 that argues directly against your point that OpenVMS couldn't have been confused with open source. In the press release, Caldera announce their "OpenDOS" which is, they say, an "OPEN SOURCE CODE MODEL FOR DOS"
I don’t agree it is “revisionist” history. Yes, people used phrases like “open source code” prior to 1998, but without a clear and universally agreed meaning - pre-1998, “open source” could just mean the source code was available under unspecified terms, possibly with significant strings attached (e.g. commercial use requires paid license, no redistribution of modified versions, etc). It was only circa 1998 that “open source” came to clearly mean the Open Source Definition
In fact, in a pre-1998 sense, VMS (“Open” or not) had “open source” in that customers could order source listings. Yes we’d now call that something more like “source available” but that category wasn’t clearly distinguished from “open source” back then
In any event, go read trade magazines from the early 1990s, you’ll find talk of “open systems” in almost every issue, the phrase “open source” rarely if ever occurs
If I remember correctly it was more or less coined as an alternative to "Free Software" which wasn't as industry-compatible. I also remember a lot of discussions (and essays by Stallman) about how Open Source is not Free Software as it lacked the enforcement of freedom that is the GPL.
You are acting like the term open source has a clearer and more agreed upon meaning than it did back then. Perhaps the idea of a more standard definition has grown, but people still use it confusingly today.
funny how you move the goal post from 1998 to early 90's.
I built my first linux box in 1996 and yes open-things were largely associated with open licenses already so it is no suprise some companies decided to jump on the openwashing wagon early.
> funny how you move the goal post from 1998 to early 90's.
I didn't "move the goal post from 1998 to early 90's".
We are talking about OpenVMS which was given that name in 1992.
So the "goal post" has been the early 90s all along. The relevance of 1998 here is that it is after the early 90s.
> I built my first linux box in 1996 and yes open-things were largely associated with open licenses already so it is no suprise some companies decided to jump on the openwashing wagon early.
I agree and remember similar. I wouldn't be surprised if someone else says that "open source" doesn't mean "Open Source" in the "official" (whatever that means) sense. Wikipedia seems to support the revisionist history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
This idea that Christine Peterson invented the term open source in 1998 is revisionist history. I personally remember the term being used during the early 90's, and here's a Usenet thread from 1990 that backs up my memory:
https://web.archive.org/web/20220213152832/https://www.tech-...
(The relevant text is a little way down in the thread: "BSD's open source policy meant that user developed software could be ported among platforms...")
Heck, here's a Caldera press release from 1996 that argues directly against your point that OpenVMS couldn't have been confused with open source. In the press release, Caldera announce their "OpenDOS" which is, they say, an "OPEN SOURCE CODE MODEL FOR DOS"
https://web.archive.org/web/20200521004332/http://www.xent.c...