4 ms·
Okay fine. And your solution to that is to repeat the exact same mistake by trying to fight over the same term? On some level, you have to know that the phrase
by danShumway 6y ago
Okay fine. And your solution to that is to repeat the exact same mistake by trying to fight over the same term?
On some level, you have to know that the phrase Open Source has value. That's why companies want to use it. That's why they're arguing over broadening the definition and calling the OSI a gatekeeper. They want to be able to use that phrase because it has positive connotations. It's not a linguistic debate, it's a debate over being able to imply that some software is Free even when it's not.
If you think that the OSI made a mistake by picking an existing phrase, that's a totally valid criticism you can have, but as a community we're still not going to let you redefine the phrase. We've invested in this. Take your own advice and come up with a new word for these new licenses.
- MaxBarraclough 6y agoThis topic has turned up recently on HN. [0][1] Your position here matches my own: open source is a precise term of art in the software community, the way flap is a precise term of art in aviation. [1] Trademarks are not especially relevant, and neither is the early history of the term. To put it in legalistic terms: you can face legal consequences for false advertising despite making no use of trademarked language. The court will not be interested in the etymology of the words you used, that's an academic matter, it's the modern meaning that counts. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25366825 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25366825 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25834342 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25834342