4 ms·
Announcement itself is fine. The way you contrast "open" with "proprietary" is a bit jarring. It should be free versus proprietary, but if you find that undesir
by vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Announcement itself is fine. The way you contrast "open" with "proprietary" is a bit jarring. It should be free versus proprietary, but if you find that undesirable, then just go with open/closed.
EDIT: Quite predictably, I got downvoted for asking people to use proper terminology and for promoting free software.
- nanny 11y agoPeople just hate when you correct their semantics, don't take it personally. Many people also don't know the difference between free and open. Here's a popular article by RMS which explains the difference: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.e...
- animefan 11y agoThat ship has sailed. Today, "open source" means "free" in Stallman's terminology. Asking people to use nonstandard terminology in order to promote a particular viewpoint is not reasonable.