3 ms·
That's not really what I'm trying to argue. What I'm trying to argue that you can have OSI open software that is not FSF free software and you can have FSF free
by da_chicken 8y ago
That's not really what I'm trying to argue. What I'm trying to argue that you can have OSI open software that is not FSF free software and you can have FSF free software that is not OSI open software, and either of those types of software are labelled as proprietary by the parties that exclude them. My point is that just because something doesn't meet the OSI open source defintion doesn't mean it's proprietary.
However, if I do consider your argument, it's not very good. The argument would be that the Open Source Initiative is not the authority for the plain English meaning of terms. If the argument I'm making is that OSI's definition is not authoritative, you can't cite the OSI's definition as an authoritative counter argument. You're begging the question. Yes, people are going to assume "open source" means "OSI open software," but that doesn't meant that everybody is always using it to mean that.
- ocdtrekkie 8y agoBoth FSF and OSI fundamentally recognize each other as "not proprietary", even if they have different goals and different preferences on how FOSS ("free/open source software") is licensed. And the OSI is not the authority for the meaning of English terms, correct. But the developers who use those terms are (much as language is determined by how people use it), and by and large, most everyone understands and agrees that open source software is software that meets the qualifications set by the OSI.
- skybrian 8y agoI'm usually a descriptivist for most English usage, but in this case we're fortunate to have an official, useful definition and should promote it over others, rather than letting it slide into becoming a meaningless buzzword like "agile". I'm not sure how common non-standard usage is yet but I don't think it's too late?