4 ms·
It's an extremely important distinction. There's a term for software like Unreal Engine, which is "source available", and the difference between this and "open
by skohan 6y ago
It's an extremely important distinction. There's a term for software like Unreal Engine, which is "source available", and the difference between this and "open source" has massive categorical differences in terms of what you can legally do with this source code.
If an important distinction like this is fading from our language, it's probably evidence that newer members of the community haven't been fully educated on the implications of software licensing terms, and if that's the case we should focus on improving that education, not resign ourselves to important knowledge being lost by the community.
For instance, if you learned that young people were not aware of the dangers of exposure to lead, you would not throw up your hands and say: "I guess we'll just start using lead pipes again". You would make an effort to pass on that knowledge.
- MaxBarraclough 6y agoThis topic turned up on HN 6 weeks ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26079067 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26079067 I agree with your position. Open Source is not a meaninglessly unclear term, it is a precise term of art. It makes good sense to resist efforts to turn it into a meaningless marketing term like premium. Some people point out that the term isn't trademarked. That doesn't matter. That isn't how terms of art work.