> 'open' and 'source' are also just two words of the English language which have an implied meaning when put together. Right, which is further evidence against

> 'open' and 'source' are also just two words of the English language which have an implied meaning when put together. Right, which is further evidence against the assertion that '"open source" means absolutely nothing'. > Also how would you actually call software where the source is open but does not fulfill the osi criteria? I tend to use the term "transparent software". Goes hand-in-hand with my catchphrase[0] 'round these parts. Basically: if I can see the source code (and therefore can independently audit it, or hire someone to do so), then it's transparent and can (potentially) be trusted, even if the license infringes on my freedoms around that source code (modification, redistribution, etc.). ---- [0]: "transparency is a dependency of trust": https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=transparency%20is%20a%20dependency%20of%20trust&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...