Tuesday March 29, 2005
How The Game Is Played
Irascible old programmer rant 1: The rape of the english language
Okay,
I promised that this blog would be one third gamer journal. So far I've fulfilled that with my notes on Matrix Online.
I promised it would be 1/3 developer journal. I've sort of done that with my notes on moving to linux. Heavier stuff will follow as I get out of my doc writing phase and back into actual development.
And I promised it would be 1/3 irascible old programmer rants. So here is a rant. Actually its an irascible old writer rant but I'm a many facted ranter!
Wittgenstein said "meaning is use" but for words to have any meaning what so ever, that use must be reasonably standardized. Otherwise we are just grunting empty sounds at each other with less meaning then a chimpanzee's hoots-- those at least have a common meaning set.
Thats why the dictionary was invented and it used to be that no intelligent person would write anything without one by their side. My parents, professional writers for 40 years, still consider it a primary tool of their trade and have one at each desk.
In today's America however, it has become common practice to argue your political purpose by redefining words to mean what you want them to. There are many great examples. The classic, and the folks who IMHO probably started it all, are the anti-abortion movement.
Now I am not going to start a fight over that political point here. This is not a political blog, this is a blog about being intelligent and educated users of the English langauge. Thsoe folks however discovered a brilliant, if twisted, poltiical technique that I AM writing about. It is a movement against something. they don't believe in abortion. The believe it is murder and fundamentally wrong. Thats fine. What they discovered though is that people react negatively to the word "anti". Its a word with negative connotations. So they redefined themselves as "pro-=life."
I'm sorry, thats nonsense. Brilliant, highly effective nonsense. They aren't mobilizing to create life. By their own arguments, they are against something-- against what they see as murder. That is the point of their mission. Nor are the pro-abortion folks against life, They are just against having their choice to abort or not taken away. None of this changed when the anti-abortion movement changed the language HOWEVER they suddenly found themselves a lot more popular, even though the label they chose was less accurate.
Others have learned from this example. One of my personal favorites is the "open source movement." To quote another recent blog which will remain nameless:
"is it o.k. to implement OpenOffice.org features using the Java technology considering that Java is not fully open source in the pure sense"
What an interesting statement. What is Open Source in the purest sense ? The purest sense of English, as I already mentioned, is contained in the dictionary. Lets have a look:
According to Webster's online dictionary ( http://www.m-w.com ):
Main Entry: source
Pronunciation: 'sOrs, 'sors
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English sours, from Middle French sors, sourse, from Old French, from past participle of sourdre to rise, spring forth, from Latin surgere -- more at SURGE
1 a : a generative force : CAUSE b (1) : a point of origin or procurement : BEGINNING (2) : one that initiates : AUTHOR; also : PROTOTYPE, MODEL (3) : one that supplies information
2 a : the point of origin of a stream of water : FOUNTAINHEAD b archaic : SPRING, FOUNT
3 : a firsthand document or primary reference work
4 : an electrode in a field-effect transistor that supplies the charge carriers for current flow -- compare DRAIN, GATE
synonym see ORIGIN
This is somewhat confusing until we recall that "source" in this case is a shortened version of "source code." Code is defined as follows:
Main Entry: 1code
Pronunciation: 'kOd
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin caudex, codex trunk of a tree, document formed originally from wooden tablets
1 : a systematic statement of a body of law; especially : one given statutory force
2 : a system of principles or rules
3 a : a system of signals or symbols for communication b : a system of symbols (as letters or numbers) used to represent assigned and often secret meanings
4 : GENETIC CODE
5 : a set of instructions for a computer
Aha! Now it makes sense. Reliable, english sense. Source = origin. Code = set of instructions for a computer. "Source code" == the original set of instructions for the computer.
Lets try "open":
Main Entry: open
Pronunciation: 'O-p&n, -p&m
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): open·er /'Op-n&r, 'O-p&-/; open·est /'Op-n&st, 'O-p&-/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German offan open, Old English up up
1 : having no enclosing or confining barrier : accessible on all or nearly all sides
2 a (1) : being in a position or adjustment to permit passage : not shut or locked(2) : having a barrier (as a door) so adjusted as to allow passage b : having the lips parted c : not buttoned or zipped
3 a : completely free from concealment : exposed to general view or knowledgeb : exposed or vulnerable to attack or question : SUBJECT
4 a : not covered with a top, roof, or lidb : having no protective covering
5 : not restricted to a particular group or category of participants: as a : enterable by both amateur and professional contestants b : enterable by a registered voter regardless of political affiliation
6 : fit to be traveled over : presenting no obstacle to passage or view
7 : having the parts or surfaces laid out in an expanded position : spread out : UNFOLDED
8 a (1) : LOW 13 (2) : formed with the tongue in a lower positionb (1) : having clarity and resonance unimpaired by undue tension or constriction of the throat (2) of a tone : produced by an open string or on a wind instrument by the lip without the use of slides, valves, or keys
9 a : available to follow or make use ofb : not taken up with duties or engagements c : not finally decided : subject to further consideration d : available for a qualified applicant : VACANT e : remaining available for use or filling until canceled f : available for future purchase
10 a : characterized by ready accessibility and usually generous attitude: as (1) : generous in giving (2) : willing to hear and consider or to accept and deal with : RESPONSIVE (3) : free from reserve or pretense : FRANK b : accessible to the influx of new factors (as foreign goods)
11 a : having openings, interruptions, or spaces: as (1) : being porous and friable (2) : sparsely distributed : SCATTERED (3) of a compound : having components separated by a space in writing or printing (as opaque projector) b : not made up of a continuous closed circuit of channels
12 a of an organ pipe : not stopped at the top b of a string on a musical instrument : not stopped by the finger
13 : being in operation; especially : ready for business, patronage, or use to="to" _5="_5">
14 a (1) : characterized by lack of effective regulation of various commercial enterprises(2) : not repressed by legal controls b : free from checking or hampering restraints c : relatively unguarded by opponents
15 : having been opened by a first ante, bet, or bid
16 of punctuation : characterized by sparing use especially of the comma
17 a : containing none of its endpointsb : being a set or composed of sets each point of which has a neighborhood all of whose points are contained in the set
18 a : being an incomplete electrical circuit b : not allowing the flow of electricitysynonym see FRANK, LIABLE
- open adverb
- open·ly /'O-p&n-lE/ adverb
- open·ness /-p&(n)-n&s/ noun
Wow, now thats a big one. Lots there. Most of which doesn't make much sense at all. It could mean definition 1, "accessible on all sides" but if we read further we see that this is aphyscial definition (an open field) and is really a stretch to naythign non-physical. It could mean definiton 12, not stopped by a finger, but thats even less likely. It could simply mean "ready for use" as per definition 13.
What I DON'T see anywhere is a definition that says "free of charge for any and all use" or "not covered by copyrights."
Yet this is EXACTLY what the other blogger meant. If thats not English then why did he say it? Because the term "open source" used to have an English meaning. It meant open as an open-book, definition 7. In other words readable source. Thsi is a term however that has been misused and abused for political purposes. The word "socialism" has negative connotations to americns while "open" sounds so much better to an American ear. But that's what the "open software movement" is-- a socialist software movement. A movement that wants to see software (all intellectual property, actually) moved to shared common property of the entire society.
Now again, I'm not going to try to comment on the politics here. Frankly I'm not ashamed to admit that there are a lot of things I personally admire in truly socialist societies. But hiding behind words stripped of their meaning and redefined is the argument of manipulative cowards afraid that they cannot defend what theyre ally mean in real English.
And I am way past sick of it.
In the purest sense open source software means that the source is readable. Thats it. And its high time we reminded the world of that. In the purest sense, Java is open source today. The source can be dowbloaded and read relatively freely. Its only in the corrupted sense, of truly socialist software development, that it is not.
Posted at 03:50PM Mar 29, 2005 by gameguy in General | Comments[11]
"Open Source"TM has connotations beyond Open + Source - the definition is 'owned' by the OSI (ignoring for one moment the trademark ownership battle) - you won't find a good definition in the dictionary; here's OSIs definition :
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
The problem for Java is supporting the distribution / modification clause yet still enforcing absolute compatibility - it is a hard problem to solve and redefining the phrase "Open Source" won't help.
Also I noticed 2 spelling mistakes in the opening line of your rant about Intelligent use of English ;)
- Rich
Posted by Rich Sharples on March 29, 2005 at 05:35 PM EST #
Spelling is orthogonal to the point. You will NEVER find me rantign abotu spellign as its long been accpeted on the net that spelling/typo flames are the last refuge of those with nothing to say.
As for the rest. You just proved my point. the usage is not english,/b>. It is some alien conncocted lamnguage that requires its own non-standard "dictionary' to justify it.
I can post my own "dictionary" that says black is white and up is down. It doesn't make it so.
If the argument of the so-called "open-source movement" is at all defensible, it should br defensible in the common tounge of english speakers and not have to resort to the linguistic shell-game of redefining words.
Posted by 67.116.60.14 on March 29, 2005 at 06:03 PM EST #
Posted by 67.116.60.14 on March 29, 2005 at 06:06 PM EST #
YUCK! Have I mentioned I hate the blog non-editor here?
One more try...
Spelling is orthogonal to the point. You will NEVER find me ranting about spelling as its long been accepted on the net that spelling/typo flames are the last refuge of those with nothing to say.
As for the rest. You just proved my point. the usage is not english. It is some alien conncocted lamnguage that requires its own non-standard "dictionary' to justify it.
I can post my own "dictionary" that says black is white and up is down. It doesn't make it so.
If the argument of the so-called "open-source movement" is at all defensible, it should br defensible in the common tounge of english speakers and not have to resort to the linguistic shell-game of redefining words.
Posted by 67.116.60.14 on March 29, 2005 at 06:08 PM EST #
Sigh. Stupid editor doesnt close html blocks between posts. Brilliant. Okay this SHOULD fix it... maybe...
Spelling is orthogonal to the point. You will NEVER find me ranting about spelling as its long been accepted on the net that spelling/typo flames are the last refuge of those with nothing to say.
As for the rest. You just proved my point. the usage ,b>is not english. It is some alien conncocted lamnguage that requires its own non-standard "dictionary' to justify it.
I can post my own "dictionary" that says black is white and up is down. It doesn't make it so.
If the argument of the so-called "open-source movement" is at all defensible, it should be defensible in the common tounge of english speakers and not have to resort to the linguistic shell-game of redefining words. Posted by 67.116.60.14
Posted by 67.116.60.14 on March 29, 2005 at 06:10 PM EST #
Sorry about bringing up the typo's - I just couldn't resist it ! Even as an English, English speaker living in the US my dislike for poorly written English gets less and less rampant as time goes by - when in Rome ...
Anyway, on the "Open Source" language - I disagree - "Open Source" has meaning different from open source - to protect that meaning it has even been trademarked. It's not a common word or phrase (yet) so you shouldn't rely on a dictionary definition. Agree or disagree - "Open Source" has a fairly well defined meaning for those that need to know - currently those people are IP lawyers, Marketing folks but increasingly regular people will need to understand as well - and this is where the "Open Source" brand is becoming useful.
- Rich
Posted by Rich Sharples on March 29, 2005 at 08:32 PM EST #
Hm.
Arguing that it is a brand name is an inetresting approach. It certainly IS more a brand name then anything else when used in that way.
However what you then cannot do, and the more vocal self-styled members of the "open source community" Do do, is say "blah blah blah is not open source." Java certainly IS open source according to the common english definitions.
You can say its not "Open Source(TM)" but thats it.
You have a different problem as well. A termor phrase cannot be tardemarked in the United States if it is not unqiue. One test of uniqueness is if it is already an existing peice of terminology. I cannot trademark "autommobile" or even "car horn" because its alrady in common use.
The phrase open source was in use as a computer term WELL before anyone draemed up the "open source movement." Which means your trademark is not likely to stand up if challenged in court.
Posted by 67.116.60.14 on March 29, 2005 at 08:38 PM EST #
Not being a trademark hasn't stopped the "Open Source" brand from gaining traction so the point is academic.
The thing that bothers me is that people equate Open Source to ASL - and nothing else counts - that's wrong.
Posted by Rich Sharples on March 30, 2005 at 01:30 AM EST #
Posted by 192.18.37.43 on March 30, 2005 at 06:06 PM EST #
Posted by 206.72.79.245 on March 30, 2005 at 11:58 PM EST #
Posted by Dalibor Topic on April 02, 2005 at 10:37 AM EST #