3 ms·

> It is clear we mean different things as we use term and arguing about what it should mean is pointless. I strongly disagree with this. Open source is a comm

> It is clear we mean different things as we use term and arguing about what it should mean is pointless. I strongly disagree with this. Open source is a commonly used term; if there is disagreement in it's meaning then that issue has to be resolved first, otherwise what are you even discussing? If you wish to take your attitude IMO you either have to first demonstrate that your definition of "Open Source" is either the one that should be used, or avoid using the term entirely and talk on neutral terms. You are attempting to claim that it's possible to have a neutral position on "open source" when your own position is in fact highly opinionated. Commenters are absolutely right to question whether your definition is appropriate or not.

colechristensen 8y ago
Source is obvious, what does the adjective open mean? >Allowing access, passage, or a view through an empty space; not closed or blocked. >exposed to the air or to view; not covered. "an open fire burned in the grate" >having no enclosing or confining barrier : accessible on all or nearly all sides >not restricted to a particular group or category of participants "open source" taken literally only means that the source code is available to view. The adjective open doesn't seem to lend itself to anything more than that. Getting back to the original point I was trying to make instead of unproductive defining, an original purpose of patents was to OPEN design specifications for inventions to the public instead of everything being kept as closely protected corporate secrets.
- landryraccoon 8y ago
  > Source is obvious, what does the adjective open mean? > "open source" taken literally only means that the source code is available to view Why is the literal meaning relevant? Language doesn't work that way. Do shitstorms have to refer to literal fecal weather patterns? Hackernews is frequented by professional software engineers and "Open Source" is a commonly used term in that industry. Using the dictionary definition of the words composing that terms is irrelevant. What is relevant is how the term is commonly employed in industry. Your approach only makes sense if we are talking about some sort of newly coined phrase. Open Source software has existed in industry for decades and has an understood meaning. Generally speaking, a professional software engineer will refer to something as Open Source if the source code can be both read and reused in some context. If you believe that in the tech industry it is commonly used by professionals in a different way I'd like to hear your evidence.
  - colechristensen 8y ago
    I'm just not interested in discussing what you think I should have meant with the words I used. The idea I was originally trying to convey should be clear.

colechristensen 8y ago

Source is obvious, what does the adjective open mean? >Allowing access, passage, or a view through an empty space; not closed or blocked. >exposed to the air or to view; not covered. "an open fire burned in the grate" >having no enclosing or confining barrier : accessible on all or nearly all sides >not restricted to a particular group or category of participants "open source" taken literally only means that the source code is available to view. The adjective open doesn't seem to lend itself to anything more than that. Getting back to the original point I was trying to make instead of unproductive defining, an original purpose of patents was to OPEN design specifications for inventions to the public instead of everything being kept as closely protected corporate secrets.

landryraccoon 8y ago
> Source is obvious, what does the adjective open mean? > "open source" taken literally only means that the source code is available to view Why is the literal meaning relevant? Language doesn't work that way. Do shitstorms have to refer to literal fecal weather patterns? Hackernews is frequented by professional software engineers and "Open Source" is a commonly used term in that industry. Using the dictionary definition of the words composing that terms is irrelevant. What is relevant is how the term is commonly employed in industry. Your approach only makes sense if we are talking about some sort of newly coined phrase. Open Source software has existed in industry for decades and has an understood meaning. Generally speaking, a professional software engineer will refer to something as Open Source if the source code can be both read and reused in some context. If you believe that in the tech industry it is commonly used by professionals in a different way I'd like to hear your evidence.
- colechristensen 8y ago
  I'm just not interested in discussing what you think I should have meant with the words I used. The idea I was originally trying to convey should be clear.