3 ms·

Zealots have stolen every commonly used term for open-source software. There's no reason we need to respect the artifice constructed post-facto by groups like t

Zealots have stolen every commonly used term for open-source software. There's no reason we need to respect the artifice constructed post-facto by groups like the OSI. "Open-source" can and should be used in its common sense. Raymond et al missed a big opportunity to create a more commercial-friendly open-source license by deciding to organize around a philosophy so similar to the one promoted by the FSF. The insistence that code is not open if the authors try to retain the rights that make it profitable may have cost us access to decades of source code. Things should in fact be exactly the opposite: in order to maintain the exclusive right to resell, software authors should be required to register the source code with the Copyright Office.

mindcrime 8y ago
There's no reason we need to respect the artifice constructed post-facto by groups like the OSI. "Open-source" can and should be used in its common sense. The OSI definition is the "common sense" of Open Source and has been for at least 20 years.
- cookiecaper 8y ago
  No, the number of sanctimonious lectures that occur every day about how someone is using the term "open-source" incorrectly clearly indicates that the OSI's definition is not common sense. The plain meaning of "open-source" is just what it says: the source code is open, i.e., not closed, i.e., accessible to users. Let the OSI and other zealots harp all they want, this type of subversive hijacking is not cool.
  - mindcrime 8y ago
    A tiny minority of people who don't understand, or don't accept, the OSI Definition, is not evidence that it isn't the defacto definition. It really doesn't matter how much red-faced foot-stomping and fist-table-smashing people indulge in, it doesn't change the simple fact that the OSI Definition is the standard definition of what it means to be "Open Source". If you're not willing to accept that, that's fine, but realize that that ship sailed 20+ years ago. As battles go, I'd ask if this is really the hill you want to die on.

mindcrime 8y ago

There's no reason we need to respect the artifice constructed post-facto by groups like the OSI. "Open-source" can and should be used in its common sense. The OSI definition is the "common sense" of Open Source and has been for at least 20 years.

cookiecaper 8y ago
No, the number of sanctimonious lectures that occur every day about how someone is using the term "open-source" incorrectly clearly indicates that the OSI's definition is not common sense. The plain meaning of "open-source" is just what it says: the source code is open, i.e., not closed, i.e., accessible to users. Let the OSI and other zealots harp all they want, this type of subversive hijacking is not cool.
- mindcrime 8y ago
  A tiny minority of people who don't understand, or don't accept, the OSI Definition, is not evidence that it isn't the defacto definition. It really doesn't matter how much red-faced foot-stomping and fist-table-smashing people indulge in, it doesn't change the simple fact that the OSI Definition is the standard definition of what it means to be "Open Source". If you're not willing to accept that, that's fine, but realize that that ship sailed 20+ years ago. As battles go, I'd ask if this is really the hill you want to die on.