4 ms·

There's nothing dishonest about having a different definition of open source then the FSF or OSI.

• nsajko 6y ago
  Thus my "EDIT3" at the end of the post you replied to.
• lucideer 6y ago
  I disagree. You can make that statement in theory, for a general term without any biasing factors. For a term like "open source", that has a generally strong positive connotation, using it to self-define when your own definition of it liberally includes yourself, while the popular definition does not, strongly implies your alternate definition is designed for self-benefit. This is definitely dishonest.
  • arp242 6y ago
    "Open source" has been in use in the early 90s, as a simple usenet search will show.
    • lucideer 6y ago
      I mean you're right, but I don't see what this point has to do with my comment...