4 ms·
> 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 wit
by 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 agoThe 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.