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