"open-x" for anything not actually OSS/FOSS should be banned.
Just like "engineer" is a reserved term in many jurisdictions, "open" should be too. At least in our industry.
If a bakery wants to call itself "open", so be it. But if software calls itself "open", it had better be open.
OpenAI, OpenRouter, OpenArt, OpenGov, OpenWeb, OpenText, ... this is all malarkey.
The only instance where "open" isn't trying to pose as open source is when it's a verb or adjective coupled with a noun used in a well-understood colloquial manner, eg. "OpenDoor", "OpenTable".
OpenAI implies open source AI. Look at how hard this "open" company tries to regulate open weights.
OpenRouter implies open source routing. Their platform isn't open source at all, and a lot of the specifics people will grow to care about are entirely proprietary.
Don't even get me started on OpenGov, which is a complete travesty.
Some governments do seem to take the OpenGov label to heart and make a good effort to have a good amount of their data be open to the public. However there definitely is a large majority who just latched on to the label they likely heard at a conference, and don't truly understand the concept. They just saw everyone else doing it and decided they need to hop on the bandwagon and throw a few cookies out to make it look like they followed course.
When AI was new, I definitely got fooled by "OpenAI" and thought it was an open source style AI company. Boy was I wrong there.
The straight abuse of language lately has become quite frustrating overall, but part of that gets political and I'll stray away from that to not get too off topic. When I see these words like "Open" used in the title so often, it just makes the word feel like it's tied to a new fad, and makes it harder for me to trust projects with those names.
"open-x" for anything not actually OSS/FOSS should be banned.
Just like "engineer" is a reserved term in many jurisdictions, "open" should be too. At least in our industry.
If a bakery wants to call itself "open", so be it. But if software calls itself "open", it had better be open.
OpenAI, OpenRouter, OpenArt, OpenGov, OpenWeb, OpenText, ... this is all malarkey.
The only instance where "open" isn't trying to pose as open source is when it's a verb or adjective coupled with a noun used in a well-understood colloquial manner, eg. "OpenDoor", "OpenTable".
OpenAI implies open source AI. Look at how hard this "open" company tries to regulate open weights.
OpenRouter implies open source routing. Their platform isn't open source at all, and a lot of the specifics people will grow to care about are entirely proprietary.
Don't even get me started on OpenGov, which is a complete travesty.
These are such bold-faced lies.
Some governments do seem to take the OpenGov label to heart and make a good effort to have a good amount of their data be open to the public. However there definitely is a large majority who just latched on to the label they likely heard at a conference, and don't truly understand the concept. They just saw everyone else doing it and decided they need to hop on the bandwagon and throw a few cookies out to make it look like they followed course.
When AI was new, I definitely got fooled by "OpenAI" and thought it was an open source style AI company. Boy was I wrong there.
The straight abuse of language lately has become quite frustrating overall, but part of that gets political and I'll stray away from that to not get too off topic. When I see these words like "Open" used in the title so often, it just makes the word feel like it's tied to a new fad, and makes it harder for me to trust projects with those names.