2 ms·
I wasn't referring to legality, only replying to the idea that "open" and "source" are "just two words". For an example closer to the subject at hand, the Free
by rmmm 8y ago
I wasn't referring to legality, only replying to the idea that "open" and "source" are "just two words". For an example closer to the subject at hand, the Free Software Foundation makes it clear what does and what does not fit the Free Software definition and that does not rely on the force of law.
- colechristensen 8y agoNo, the OSI is acting like it has legal rights to tell people how to use the phrase as much as is possible without actually saying they own the term. This is the problem. They aren't sharing opinions but giving orders.
- rmmm 8y agoWhere in the article does the OSI mention or hint at anything about threat of law? The OSI does have the legal right to tell you what they think Open Source is. You have the legal right to ignore it. All OSI did is say "here is our definition of Open Source, and these are the people that agree with us, and you should agree with us too."