3 ms·
I favor the "source available = source available" and "open source = open source (by the commonly understood open source definition)". It's much clearer that wa
by swsieber 7y ago
I favor the "source available = source available" and "open source = open source (by the commonly understood open source definition)". It's much clearer that way, and wasn't really a muddy issue until certain big software companies started using "open source = source available"
- contravariant 7y agoFor the sake of clarity you probably shouldn't define what you mean by 'open source' in terms of the 'commonly understood open source definition'.
- swsieber 7y agoOh, that's true - I was sloppy. OSI definition is what I meant.
- nothrabannosir 7y agoHaving to define "open source" with that addendum illustrates the issue quite apropriately. "Open Source ≠ open source" is the essence of the problem. The source is open, yet it isn't open source. Here's an experiment you can run: hold an informal survey amongst a representative subset of programmers. "What does open source mean?". See what they say. I think I met one who knew what the OSI was. Ironically, "free software" is a similarly terrible term. It should be called "freedom software". I once e-mailed Stallman to ask about it, and he replied they couldn't use that term because it was already trademarked. Welp...