3 ms·

Not everyone treats "open source" as a political term. The OSI doesn't have any special right to define it. Many just use it as a catchier alternative to "sourc

by pinum 8y ago

Not everyone treats "open source" as a political term. The OSI doesn't have any special right to define it. Many just use it as a catchier alternative to "source available".

JoshTriplett 8y ago
(off topic) People can certainly use a term in a way contrary to the expectations and definitions used by the vast majority of other people, and then they shouldn't act surprised if they're either misunderstood, called incorrect, or perhaps most importantly, called out as being intentionally obtuse and confusing and asked to stop that. Language is descriptive rather than prescriptive, but descriptive language can still call some usages incorrect when they're exceedingly likely to be interpreted differently than the standard meaning and lead to unclear communication. Several decades ago, before open source was nearly as widespread and before there were any popular definitions, it was understandable when people use the term rather fuzzily; everyone had their own understanding of it. That's not the case anymore. In any case, the original point would still stand if stated as "that set of goals is incompatible with what the vast majority of people who use the term 'open source' would consider 'open source'", but that would be excessively verbose, would only serve to confuse the point with a needless distraction that wasn't part of the original topic, and would in particular distract from the more important point of "here's a possible way to do what you're trying to do without that problem".
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
patates 8y ago
This has nothing to do with OSI. This is what people understand when you say open source. Why wouldn't one say "shared source" instead of confusing others? We need to have some common understanding to these terms because otherwise everything needs to be written like the "Thing Explainer"[1]. [1]: https://xkcd.com/thing-explainer/ https://xkcd.com/thing-explainer/

by pinum 8y ago

Not everyone treats "open source" as a political term. The OSI doesn't have any special right to define it. Many just use it as a catchier alternative to "source available".

JoshTriplett 8y ago

(off topic) People can certainly use a term in a way contrary to the expectations and definitions used by the vast majority of other people, and then they shouldn't act surprised if they're either misunderstood, called incorrect, or perhaps most importantly, called out as being intentionally obtuse and confusing and asked to stop that. Language is descriptive rather than prescriptive, but descriptive language can still call some usages incorrect when they're exceedingly likely to be interpreted differently than the standard meaning and lead to unclear communication. Several decades ago, before open source was nearly as widespread and before there were any popular definitions, it was understandable when people use the term rather fuzzily; everyone had their own understanding of it. That's not the case anymore. In any case, the original point would still stand if stated as "that set of goals is incompatible with what the vast majority of people who use the term 'open source' would consider 'open source'", but that would be excessively verbose, would only serve to confuse the point with a needless distraction that wasn't part of the original topic, and would in particular distract from the more important point of "here's a possible way to do what you're trying to do without that problem".

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

patates 8y ago

This has nothing to do with OSI. This is what people understand when you say open source. Why wouldn't one say "shared source" instead of confusing others? We need to have some common understanding to these terms because otherwise everything needs to be written like the "Thing Explainer"[1]. [1]: https://xkcd.com/thing-explainer/ https://xkcd.com/thing-explainer/