4 ms·

And companies releasing “open source” software which has hooks in it that put other companies in potential legal trouble (beyond their he usual GPL type stuff)

And companies releasing “open source” software which has hooks in it that put other companies in potential legal trouble (beyond their he usual GPL type stuff) are themselves co-opting the term for their own ends. It’s hiding behind “language flexibility” to use “open source” in this manner.

EarlKing 6y ago
...or they're using that phrase exactly as it was intended before the OSI got their hands on it.
- Robotbeat 6y ago
  I haven't seen evidence of that.
  - EarlKing 6y ago
    There's links to plenty of it over here[1] which I posted up-chat. [1] https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html
    - Robotbeat 6y ago
      Your link doesn’t support your claim. Most of those seem closer to the OSI definition (BSD is the first one, GPL, Linux, etc) and the ones that might contradict it are rarer. The way most people have been using “open source” is a lot closer to OSI than these companies are claiming. It’s misleading to use a different definition nowadays. And I think that’s the actual intent. If it wasn’t, then they’d be perfectly fine with using another unambiguous term like “source available.” If there was a strong desire to be clear and not misleading, they’d use such a term.