GoKawiilIn the last month I've found I've been hyper aware of noticing folks writing open-source everywhere I look, which feels like there's something slightly larger at play.
Where I've had access and means to, I'll correct references to correctly call it either open source or Open Source as appropriate, but there's a lot out there I don't really have the time to try and correct for everyone, so here's a blog post to hopefully make more of an impact.
For those that aren't aware, there are two distinct definitions of these two capitalisations:
If this difference was news to you, congrats on being one of the lucky 10,000, and apologies that you're now going to start noticing inconsistent (and potentially incorrect) capitalisation everywhere!
Where possible, I try to be specific about whether I use Open Source or open source , and will refresh the readers' memory if I've not defined it yet. In the same vein, because there aren't many folks who understand open source or Open Source means that companies can get away with Openwashing, making folks think that the use of an open source license is great, when actually it's the Business Source License, or a case of "you can read the code but you can't contribute back".
Slide tangent aside, you'll notice that in neither of the capitalisations, open source nor Open Source are hyphenated. As the Open Source Initiative notes, Open Source is never hyphenated, and so for consistency, we should also follow the same for open source .
So why do I think there's been a rise recently of the incorrect hyphenation? Well, as every good Luddite, I blame the new technology!
I couldn't find - through a cursory search online - whether there's any recent research that's covered this, but it seems like Large Language Models (LLMs) are nudging folks to using the incorrect hyphenation of open-source .
I did a little research myself, using the following prompt, across a mix of models available to me:
what would you describe as the class of licenses like the MIT and GPL?
... continue reading