4 ms·
> geez, what's up with all these armchair open source experts on HN? Looks like too many people on this thread thinks this is evil. This is evil because it's i
by SXX 6y ago
> geez, what's up with all these armchair open source experts on HN? Looks like too many people on this thread thinks this is evil.
This is evil because it's intentional false advertisement. That's fine when some company which is totally new to the field doing it, but these guys have their code published on GitHub for years and they know the difference.
This is no different from situation when surveillance sold under names like Patriot Act.
> Lastly, who the hell cares what some website called opensource.org says what open source is? This is all subjective, and from my point of view, if the source code is open, it is "open" source.
Yeah and if I decide that my restaurant make amazing pork dishes I am totally allowed to call them Vegan, Halal or Kosher. Right?
Then we'll have amazing products like zoom call their software end2end encrypted. Oh actually it's already happen. And we also have this amazing software called Telegram which is totally encrypted except it isn't (by default). And Apple is absolutely cannot get access to your encryption key, unless you enable this shiny cloud backup option.
- cocktailpeanuts 6y agoAre they charging you for something? They are literally giving something away for free, and you are free to use it or not. What an entitlement. You basically want people to be punished for giving away something for no charge, and has caused you no harm.
- teddyh 6y agoIf I gave away free pork sandwiches, would I be allowed to call them “vegan”, merely because I didn’t charge for them? This is not about the money.
- cocktailpeanuts 6y agoBad analogy doesn't help with your argument. The source code is open, different people have different opinion about the definition of "open source". if someone calls a pork sandwich "vegan", that's objectively false. Not the case for the concept of open source because the definition is murky and I refuse to follow some authority's definition of what open source is.
- teddyh 6y agoYou’re jumping from argument to argument. You explicitly argued that since it was free, nobody should be able to claim anything wrong with how it was presented. Now you’re instead claiming that the term “open source” was perfectly justified, since the definition is “murky”. So which is it? Either the term “open source” is fitting, in which case it should not matter if they charge for it or not, or it’s only OK since they don’t charge for it.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Kiro 6y agoIf this is your definition of evil I wonder how you would describe some truly evil things.