3 ms·
> The term “open source” is broadly accepted as being defined by the [Open Source Definition] No, it's not. Please don't let us go over this again and again, a
by tannhaeuser 6y ago
> The term “open source” is broadly accepted as being defined by the [Open Source Definition]
No, it's not. Please don't let us go over this again and again, always citing the same historical uses of the term Open Source preceding OSI's use.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- mixedCase 6y agoYou may not like it that the term was co-opted, if indeed it was, but it's undeniable that the OSI definition is the widely accepted one. For everything else there's free, proprietary and source available. You may want to create a new term for the sets of values things like the SSPL espouse, if source available is not generous enough.
- tannhaeuser 6y agoNope. No-one has the right to claim and redefine commonly used terms, however ethical they think their course is. Personally, I don't think there's anything ethical about dogmatically insisting on terms and holding on to discourses of decades ago, while conveniently ignoring the reality that "The Cloud" and the stagnant oligopolistic situation we're enduring is a direct consequence of F/OSS abundance. What I do care about is that software development can sustain itself, be it due to F/OSS licensing schemes or otherwise, for the simple reason that it wouldn't exist otherwise (and that I like true innovation). And for context, I've released nontrivial software under LGPL.