3 ms·
>The people have decided that "open source" means OSI open source. I am the people. I do not agree. Now what?
by konjin 6y ago
>The people have decided that "open source" means OSI open source.
I am the people. I do not agree. Now what?
- mindcrime 6y ago* Now what?* Worst case? You walk through use life using terms in non-standard, idiosyncratic ways, and people are constantly confused by your speech, or argue with you because you don't have a shared understanding of the world.
- shkkmo 6y agoExcept it isn't really idiosyncratic since there appears to be widespread confusion as to the meaning of that term. You can't just hand wave that ambiguity away and pretend that only the OSI definition is understood and used. You have to accept the "open source" is an ambiguous term and you will need to use qualifiers or additional context if you want to avoid ambiguity when using that term.
- _carbyau_ 6y agoAgreed. One of the issues is that from a Venn diagram or set theory point of view, all "Free Software"(by FSF definition) is "Open Source", but not all "Open Source" is "Free Software". Yet people really only know of Open Source as a common term to describe these projects.
- anoncake 6y agoWhat software is open source but not free? The difference is a philosophical one, not one of definitions.
- _carbyau_ 6y agoUh, it is a practical one as being described in this thread. Simply because the source is openly available to read, the licence can still say "you can read but no touchy touchy or compiling it". While technically it doesn't stop you from actually doing this, in a court of law you'd be found to have violated the licence. So it wrecks the idea of businesses doing it, because usually the licence holder won't care unless someone is making money from it. Free software lets you do whatever you want, but you gotta show your code. Big difference in practice, especially when it comes to running a business.
- anoncake 6y agoNo it is not, because what you describe isn't open source.