3 ms·

No, that is completely wrong. If you can _see_ the source, then it is _shared_ source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Source_Initiative https://en.wikipe

No, that is completely wrong. If you can _see_ the source, then it is _shared_ source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Source_Initiative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Source_Initiative). If you can _use_ and _change_ it, then it's a _open_ source. Are you going to tell me next that "free speech" means not paying for the radio? And that everything else is just one interpretation of the term? Or that freeware and free software are interchangeable terms? CC is not open source and does not get to pretend it is. Come up with your own marketing name.

ynx 7y ago
I think the point is that it's not OSI open source, rather than not "open source".
- zozbot234 7y ago
  > I think the point is that it's not OSI open source Yup, and the OS in OSI stand for, guess what, "open source".
- diffeomorphism 7y ago
  > rather than not "open source" Aka pretend it is. If you have to say that you are not actually <adjective> but only "<adjective>", then this is not an alternative definition but alternative facts (i.e. you are lying to deceive people).
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
huhtenberg 7y ago
> CC is not open source and does not get to pretend it is. CC is not a closed source license either, which is what GP claimed. That's the point. > Come up with your own marketing name. ... and the second point is that OSI zealotry doesn't make anyone any good. "Open" is an ambiguous word. It's the same issue as with "Free software", which is almost universally followed by the "free as in speech, not as in beer" explainer. 25 years in use, still ambiguous. "Open source" is a misnomer, it doesn't mean exactly what it says. Ideally, it should've been called "libre source" or some other made-up name, but that boat has sailed. And so flipping people off because their understanding of the term is different from the OSI definition only serves to antagonize them and needlessly paint the whole open source movement bad. Saying this as someone with all side projects released under OSI licenses, some as far back as in mid 90s.
- diffeomorphism 7y ago
  The GP is me. CC is not open source^TM and hence closed source^TM. > "Open source" is a misnomer, Sure, but who cares? The fact is that if you tell me "this software is open source" I know that this is a domain specific term and what it means, just like "this is a normal vector". In particular "normal" here means something else than in standard English. The only thing you are then doing is complaining about how you wanted to use "normal" for your new cool definition.... That ship has sailed.

ynx 7y ago

I think the point is that it's not OSI open source, rather than not "open source".

zozbot234 7y ago
> I think the point is that it's not OSI open source Yup, and the OS in OSI stand for, guess what, "open source".
diffeomorphism 7y ago
> rather than not "open source" Aka pretend it is. If you have to say that you are not actually <adjective> but only "<adjective>", then this is not an alternative definition but alternative facts (i.e. you are lying to deceive people).

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

huhtenberg 7y ago

> CC is not open source and does not get to pretend it is. CC is not a closed source license either, which is what GP claimed. That's the point. > Come up with your own marketing name. ... and the second point is that OSI zealotry doesn't make anyone any good. "Open" is an ambiguous word. It's the same issue as with "Free software", which is almost universally followed by the "free as in speech, not as in beer" explainer. 25 years in use, still ambiguous. "Open source" is a misnomer, it doesn't mean exactly what it says. Ideally, it should've been called "libre source" or some other made-up name, but that boat has sailed. And so flipping people off because their understanding of the term is different from the OSI definition only serves to antagonize them and needlessly paint the whole open source movement bad. Saying this as someone with all side projects released under OSI licenses, some as far back as in mid 90s.

diffeomorphism 7y ago
The GP is me. CC is not open source^TM and hence closed source^TM. > "Open source" is a misnomer, Sure, but who cares? The fact is that if you tell me "this software is open source" I know that this is a domain specific term and what it means, just like "this is a normal vector". In particular "normal" here means something else than in standard English. The only thing you are then doing is complaining about how you wanted to use "normal" for your new cool definition.... That ship has sailed.