8 ms·

Just because it's widely use doesn't mean anything. No one as monopoly or single authority of open source definition.

by matz1 6y ago

zozbot234 6y ago
Except they kinda do, seeing as OSI holds the literal trademark to open source.
- gpm 6y ago
  Not only do they not hold a trademark, they tried to acquire a trademark and failed because it was "too descriptive" (and I suspect because it was already in use). See my comment above for links: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23234029 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23234029
detaro 6y ago
Nobody has a single authority on what words mean. That doesn't mean terms don't have established meanings, and it'll make things difficult for you if you insist on using them differently.
SXX 6y ago
As a private person you're free to use words as you wish, but in this case this is false advertising by a company. Go on try to sell some pork dish as "vegan" or "kosher" food and I'll look how fast you'll be brought to a court. This is no different.
- matz1 6y ago
  You can always try to brought any one for any reason to a court, doesn't mean you will succeed.
- m0llusk 6y ago
  You are being blinded by your political agenda. This source code is readily available and costs nothing, thus it is both open and free. Much of the machinery here is relevant to me, so I can learn about the nature of the system through the code and adapt design lessons to completely unrelated applications. Without this free and open code no such thing would be possible. I understand that you have nothing but loathing and contempt for my approach to software development and you are welcome to promote your philosophy but you will find it impossible to bend simple language to your wishes as long as there are people who see things completely differently.
  - vertex-four 6y ago
    Microsoft disagrees with you, and has since at least 2001, well before they cared about open source software at all. They use the terms "source-available" or "shared source". So do... all the other big enterprises. They don't want to confuse people; they want the restrictions on licensing to be clear. What words would you like me to use for open source software that you're not going to trample over in 5 years when it becomes convenient for advertising your software?
    - gpm 6y ago
      > What words would you like me to use for open source software that you're not going to trample over in 5 years when it becomes convenient for advertising your software? Option a) Makeup a non-generic not already in use term and trademark it. Option b) Just say "licensed under <well_known_license>". What you're required to do to get the exclusivity you're looking for is well established in the rules we are all required to play by known as "the law".
      - vertex-four 6y ago
        We're also required, when communicating with each other, to communicate in good faith and to create a shared understanding. There's no law about that, it's just pointless to try and communicate if we can't do that. Otherwise, I can say something like this and expect you to understand me: Most people believe that an onlooker underhandedly ignores an omphalos, but they need to remember how non-chalantly the cigar about an espadrille laughs out loud. When a menagé à trois for a labyrinth rejoices, a starlet living with a clodhopper feels nagging remorse. An unsightly impresario is darling. When the surly menagé à trois starts reminiscing about lost glory, a curmudgeonly bubble ceases to exist. Or I can redefine water to mean any clear liquid, including sulfuric acid, and sell that to you, and claim you should've understood what I meant when you die.
        gpm 6y ago
        What you're trying to argue for is more akin to redefining "clear liquid" to mean water, and then trying to argue I'm deceiving you when I sell you a "clear liquid" and it happens to be sulfuric acid. The words "open source" have a plain pre-existing meaning. "Water" does not. Now to go ahead and make your argument for you - this use of the term open source might be like if I went ahead and sold you (having to force this a bit, since I've failed to find a good example of a noun) insurance against kicking the bucket, and then I tried to define it as insurance against literally kicking buckets. Possibly you can find a better example, but that's the best I could come up with and - "the bucket" clearly distinguishes the term from being merely descriptive - Selling insurance against kicking buckets makes no sense, unlike "open source software" where "open" means "anyone can look at it" - Kicking the bucket is a phrase with a much longer history than OSI defined open source software.
- gpm 6y ago
  This use of the words fit the plain meaning of the term open source, there's no chance in hell you're going to win a false advertising claim.
vertex-four 6y ago
You're suggesting that language is meaningless - that communicating a shared understanding is not a goal of language.
- matz1 6y ago
  I'm suggesting language is fluid, never static.
  - vertex-four 6y ago
    So I can just decide that "Donald Trump is a space alien" actually means that I'm gonna go buy a burger today, and this isn't going to mislead anyone at all? How about that "water" can now be used do describe any clear liquid, including sulfuric acid? Go find your own words. "Shared source" has been used for literally decades to mean Defold's exact situation - why would you not use that?
    - matz1 6y ago
      >So I can just decide that "Donald Trump is a space alien" actually means that I'm gonna go buy a burger today, and this isn't going to mislead anyone at all Yes you can, some people will hate it some people will like it, just like anything else
      - vertex-four 6y ago
        The moon is made of cheese. Flubber dub. Go drink some water. Language is useless when it can't be used to create shared understanding.
        matz1 6y ago
        Useless to you maybe, not everyone has the same purpose. Ok so for the purpose of "shared understanding", let use my preferred definition of open source then.

Just because it's widely use doesn't mean anything. No one as monopoly or single authority of open source definition.

by matz1 6y ago

Just because it's widely use doesn't mean anything. No one as monopoly or single authority of open source definition.

zozbot234 6y ago

Except they kinda do, seeing as OSI holds the literal trademark to open source.

gpm 6y ago
Not only do they not hold a trademark, they tried to acquire a trademark and failed because it was "too descriptive" (and I suspect because it was already in use). See my comment above for links: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23234029 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23234029

detaro 6y ago

Nobody has a single authority on what words mean. That doesn't mean terms don't have established meanings, and it'll make things difficult for you if you insist on using them differently.

SXX 6y ago

As a private person you're free to use words as you wish, but in this case this is false advertising by a company. Go on try to sell some pork dish as "vegan" or "kosher" food and I'll look how fast you'll be brought to a court. This is no different.

matz1 6y ago
You can always try to brought any one for any reason to a court, doesn't mean you will succeed.
m0llusk 6y ago
You are being blinded by your political agenda. This source code is readily available and costs nothing, thus it is both open and free. Much of the machinery here is relevant to me, so I can learn about the nature of the system through the code and adapt design lessons to completely unrelated applications. Without this free and open code no such thing would be possible. I understand that you have nothing but loathing and contempt for my approach to software development and you are welcome to promote your philosophy but you will find it impossible to bend simple language to your wishes as long as there are people who see things completely differently.
- vertex-four 6y ago
  Microsoft disagrees with you, and has since at least 2001, well before they cared about open source software at all. They use the terms "source-available" or "shared source". So do... all the other big enterprises. They don't want to confuse people; they want the restrictions on licensing to be clear. What words would you like me to use for open source software that you're not going to trample over in 5 years when it becomes convenient for advertising your software?
  - gpm 6y ago
    > What words would you like me to use for open source software that you're not going to trample over in 5 years when it becomes convenient for advertising your software? Option a) Makeup a non-generic not already in use term and trademark it. Option b) Just say "licensed under <well_known_license>". What you're required to do to get the exclusivity you're looking for is well established in the rules we are all required to play by known as "the law".
    - vertex-four 6y ago
      We're also required, when communicating with each other, to communicate in good faith and to create a shared understanding. There's no law about that, it's just pointless to try and communicate if we can't do that. Otherwise, I can say something like this and expect you to understand me: Most people believe that an onlooker underhandedly ignores an omphalos, but they need to remember how non-chalantly the cigar about an espadrille laughs out loud. When a menagé à trois for a labyrinth rejoices, a starlet living with a clodhopper feels nagging remorse. An unsightly impresario is darling. When the surly menagé à trois starts reminiscing about lost glory, a curmudgeonly bubble ceases to exist. Or I can redefine water to mean any clear liquid, including sulfuric acid, and sell that to you, and claim you should've understood what I meant when you die.
      - gpm 6y ago
        What you're trying to argue for is more akin to redefining "clear liquid" to mean water, and then trying to argue I'm deceiving you when I sell you a "clear liquid" and it happens to be sulfuric acid. The words "open source" have a plain pre-existing meaning. "Water" does not. Now to go ahead and make your argument for you - this use of the term open source might be like if I went ahead and sold you (having to force this a bit, since I've failed to find a good example of a noun) insurance against kicking the bucket, and then I tried to define it as insurance against literally kicking buckets. Possibly you can find a better example, but that's the best I could come up with and - "the bucket" clearly distinguishes the term from being merely descriptive - Selling insurance against kicking buckets makes no sense, unlike "open source software" where "open" means "anyone can look at it" - Kicking the bucket is a phrase with a much longer history than OSI defined open source software.
gpm 6y ago
This use of the words fit the plain meaning of the term open source, there's no chance in hell you're going to win a false advertising claim.

vertex-four 6y ago

You're suggesting that language is meaningless - that communicating a shared understanding is not a goal of language.

matz1 6y ago
I'm suggesting language is fluid, never static.
- vertex-four 6y ago
  So I can just decide that "Donald Trump is a space alien" actually means that I'm gonna go buy a burger today, and this isn't going to mislead anyone at all? How about that "water" can now be used do describe any clear liquid, including sulfuric acid? Go find your own words. "Shared source" has been used for literally decades to mean Defold's exact situation - why would you not use that?
  - matz1 6y ago
    >So I can just decide that "Donald Trump is a space alien" actually means that I'm gonna go buy a burger today, and this isn't going to mislead anyone at all Yes you can, some people will hate it some people will like it, just like anything else
    - vertex-four 6y ago
      The moon is made of cheese. Flubber dub. Go drink some water. Language is useless when it can't be used to create shared understanding.
      - matz1 6y ago
        Useless to you maybe, not everyone has the same purpose. Ok so for the purpose of "shared understanding", let use my preferred definition of open source then.