5 ms·

> I continued reading and found bunch of more passages where the authors understanding of open source seems to be incorrect. The author is one of the "core tea

> I continued reading and found bunch of more passages where the authors understanding of open source seems to be incorrect. The author is one of the "core team" members of Django[0]. So, it is safe to say that whatever assumptions he has about open source is not a fantasy and cannot be compared line-by-line to a text book definition of open source. [0] - https://lukeplant.me.uk/personal.html https://lukeplant.me.uk/personal.html

random314 7y ago
I don't think the author being a member of Django adds any weight to his arguments.
davidcuddeback 7y ago
> cannot be compared line-by-line to a text book definition of open source Why not? The OP claims that his opinions are explicitly mentioned in accepted definitions: > some of which are explicit in accepted definitions of the term If the OP is going to make that claim, why should we not expect to be able to find validation for his assumptions in a written definition of open source?
- Talanes 6y ago
  The fact that your quote starts with the word "some" should tell you everything you need to know.
  - davidcuddeback 6y ago
    It doesn’t tell me which or his opinions he thinks are backed up by accepted definitions or what he considers an accepted definition. So no, it doesn’t tell us anything. It sounds more like a weasel word to get out of providing citations to back up his arguments.
diggan 6y ago
> whatever assumptions he has about open source is not a fantasy I no way am I going to accept anyone's opinion based on what project they are associated with. If Linus Torvalds says something about open source or free software, I'll read what he says and make my opinion based on what he is saying, not based on that he was the original creator of Linux. Anything else is just appeal to authority and we would do much better in discussions if we didn't do that.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

random314 7y ago

I don't think the author being a member of Django adds any weight to his arguments.

davidcuddeback 7y ago

> cannot be compared line-by-line to a text book definition of open source Why not? The OP claims that his opinions are explicitly mentioned in accepted definitions: > some of which are explicit in accepted definitions of the term If the OP is going to make that claim, why should we not expect to be able to find validation for his assumptions in a written definition of open source?

Talanes 6y ago
The fact that your quote starts with the word "some" should tell you everything you need to know.
- davidcuddeback 6y ago
  It doesn’t tell me which or his opinions he thinks are backed up by accepted definitions or what he considers an accepted definition. So no, it doesn’t tell us anything. It sounds more like a weasel word to get out of providing citations to back up his arguments.

diggan 6y ago

> whatever assumptions he has about open source is not a fantasy I no way am I going to accept anyone's opinion based on what project they are associated with. If Linus Torvalds says something about open source or free software, I'll read what he says and make my opinion based on what he is saying, not based on that he was the original creator of Linux. Anything else is just appeal to authority and we would do much better in discussions if we didn't do that.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]