4 ms·

I think the point c3534l was making is that open source should be considered a generic term and should not have its meaning conflated with Open Source™ which is

I think the point c3534l was making is that open source should be considered a generic term and should not have its meaning conflated with Open Source™ which is just one group with one opinion. And I agree, at least in part. I think the agonising over a precise definition of open source is as futile as the attempts to distinguish "hacker" from "cracker" twenty years ago. At the same time I also agree that proprietary software that has available source but no rights to do anything with it is most definitely not open source by any rational definition. So whether or not OpenDarwin is Open Source™, it's still open source.

akiselev 6y ago
> I think the point c3534l was making is that open source should be considered a generic term and should not have its meaning conflated with Open Source™ which is just one group with one opinion. They're both "just one group with one opinion." The difference is that one is definition widely accepted as a term of art in software development and the other is not.
- cxr 6y ago
  Not to mention, the capital-O capital-S group is the one who coined the phrase and pushed for its adoption in the first place.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
phoe-krk 6y ago
I fully understood his point and at the same time disagree with it - "open source" should not be considered a generic term, and the reasons are purely practical. OSI has taken this term two decades ago and coined its widely known meaning, where "open source" means "compliant with the OSI open source definition", just as GNU did with "free" or "libre" software. The terms "open source" and "free software" have become ubiquitous in the programming world and widespread even in popular culture and redefining them brings completely no benefit - not even cultural ones, since the terms "open" or "free" or "libre" software do not have background associated with racism or sexism, unlike some of the recent nomenclature debates. And this "one group with one opinion" that you are speaking of has been one of the most powerful software groups in the world with a lot of influence on how the programming world is shaped and what software you, your family, your employers, your friends and your enemies use in your daily life, so your argument about it being "one group with one opinion" holds as much sense to me as Microsoft being "just one operating system vendor with one opinion" in a discussion about operating systems.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- sjwright 6y ago
  I simply disagree that the group which coins a term gets to control its usage or its colloquial definition. That's not a reflection of my preference, it's just my own observation of reality. In reality, words mean whatever the recipient thinks it means. In practice, that means the assumptions of the median person overrule any formal definition.
  - Brian_K_White 6y ago
    They didn't write a law for the purpose of oppression and human farming. They presented a suggestion for everyone's benefit and sanity, and everyone adopted it voluntarily because it was beneficial and sane. This argument is neither.
    - sjwright 6y ago
      I'm not arguing for benefits or sanity. I'm not claiming it's a good outcome, or that it's an outcome I prefer. Far from it—I wish it was as you describe. I wish we didn't have to keep inventing new words as existing ones get corrupted by improper use.

akiselev 6y ago

> I think the point c3534l was making is that open source should be considered a generic term and should not have its meaning conflated with Open Source™ which is just one group with one opinion. They're both "just one group with one opinion." The difference is that one is definition widely accepted as a term of art in software development and the other is not.

cxr 6y ago
Not to mention, the capital-O capital-S group is the one who coined the phrase and pushed for its adoption in the first place.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

phoe-krk 6y ago

I fully understood his point and at the same time disagree with it - "open source" should not be considered a generic term, and the reasons are purely practical. OSI has taken this term two decades ago and coined its widely known meaning, where "open source" means "compliant with the OSI open source definition", just as GNU did with "free" or "libre" software. The terms "open source" and "free software" have become ubiquitous in the programming world and widespread even in popular culture and redefining them brings completely no benefit - not even cultural ones, since the terms "open" or "free" or "libre" software do not have background associated with racism or sexism, unlike some of the recent nomenclature debates. And this "one group with one opinion" that you are speaking of has been one of the most powerful software groups in the world with a lot of influence on how the programming world is shaped and what software you, your family, your employers, your friends and your enemies use in your daily life, so your argument about it being "one group with one opinion" holds as much sense to me as Microsoft being "just one operating system vendor with one opinion" in a discussion about operating systems.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
sjwright 6y ago
I simply disagree that the group which coins a term gets to control its usage or its colloquial definition. That's not a reflection of my preference, it's just my own observation of reality. In reality, words mean whatever the recipient thinks it means. In practice, that means the assumptions of the median person overrule any formal definition.
- Brian_K_White 6y ago
  They didn't write a law for the purpose of oppression and human farming. They presented a suggestion for everyone's benefit and sanity, and everyone adopted it voluntarily because it was beneficial and sane. This argument is neither.
  - sjwright 6y ago
    I'm not arguing for benefits or sanity. I'm not claiming it's a good outcome, or that it's an outcome I prefer. Far from it—I wish it was as you describe. I wish we didn't have to keep inventing new words as existing ones get corrupted by improper use.