John Mark Walker has offered up an excellent analysis of "open source" (the descriptor, that is). I've been struggling with this for some time (as has Gartner, more recently), and appreciate John Mark's angle on the problem.Over the years, I've begun to feel that emphasizing the pragmatic aspect of Open Source at the expense of the moral was a mistake, especially when the moral aspects fuel so many of the curren John Mark Walker has offered up an excellent analysis of “open source” (the descriptor, that is). I’ve been struggling with this for some time (as has Gartner, more recently), and appreciate John Mark’s angle on the problem.Over the years, I’ve begun to feel that emphasizing the pragmatic aspect of Open Source at the expense of the moral was a mistake, especially when the moral aspects fuel so many of the current debates. There are many software vendors that wish to be more open and want to identify themselves as something that’s not the same as traditional proprietary softare, and you can hardly blame them. They have been led to believe that Open Source is something that describes anything that’s more open than everything else. The OSI has to find a way to accomodate these folks without diluting the term Open Source, but they can’t do that until they publicly acknowledge the moral component of the OSD. It is better to acknowledge that it exists and eliminate any confusion as to why certain practices are not allowed. Then the OSI can perhaps accept the challenge of creating a fair taxonomy that doesn’t simply describe mostly-open software as “not Open Source.” If they don’t, someone else probably will. As an OSI board member, I can say that this is an issue that comes up at every OSI board meeting. We discuss it all the time. But there is no easy solution. Many of my commercial open source colleagues chafe at OSI’s “stringent” definition of open source (because, unfortunately, they don’t qualify as open source vendors under the OSI’s Open Source Definition). But what to call them? This brings up a legitimate question: what then, should they call themselves? They’re not traditional proprietary companies, so lumping them in with the likes of traditional ISV’s doesn’t seem right. It would seem that the obvious solution is to come up with a set of terms that describe companies more open than others… but not exactly “Open Source.” For the record, I think it makes sense to have a strict definition of Open Source so as not to confuse the market. But there is a larger issue – why hasn’t the OSI taken a leading role in providing an umbrella taxonomy for these companies? We need clear definitions, and the OSI’s Definition has served the industry exceptionally well for many years. I don’t see any reason to change it now. But what I do think we’re missing is a good descriptor for these quasi-open source companies. They want to compete with an open model, but hold back (for a variety of reasons, some good and some bad). I’d like to find a descriptor that recognizes the positives in their approach. I don’t always do this well, but I do prefer to focus on the positive in what people are doing. Most “open source” companies believe in the power of open source – they just haven’t managed to fully embrace it. So let’s find something that gives them credit and, hopefully, encourages them to take the next step at some later stage.As I’ve said before, “shared source” does a good job of describing what most of them do. It also doesn’t eliminate their ability to keep some code proprietary (which most will share with paying customers – viewable and modifiable but not redistributable). Its downside is that Microsoft already claimed that descriptor, and most of these companies would want some separation from Redmond in their efforts…. Thoughts? Open Source