3 ms·

Debian and NumWorks obviously have different perspectives. The points raised in your comment are more ideological than practical. Personally I am happy that a

Debian and NumWorks obviously have different perspectives. The points raised in your comment are more ideological than practical. Personally I am happy that a company that cares about source accessibility is making decent calculators, and slightly amused that Debian and the OSI seem to find that worse than copyleft.

snvzz 6y ago
>The points raised in your comment are more ideological than practical. The primary point is that this is neither Open Source nor Free Software, by OSI and FSF definitions of these terms, which are the generally accepted ones. When a claim of "open source" is wrongly made in the interest of marketing, the expectation should be for this misrepresentation to be called for.
- zepto 6y ago
  > which are the generally accepted ones. They really aren’t. These are colloquial terms, not trademarks. > When a claim of "open source" is wrongly made in the interest of marketing, the expectation should be for this misrepresentation to be called for. It’s not a misrepresentation. “Open source” is a generic term. Pretending it has a legal meaning is just not a reflection of reality.
  - snvzz 6y ago
    >They really aren’t. These are colloquial terms, not trademarks. They are terms with strong definitions that are well accepted in the community, including the industry. >It’s not a misrepresentation. “Open source” is a generic term. It isn't. See above. >Pretending it has a legal meaning is just not a reflection of reality. Nobody said a thing (yet) about legal meaning. However, there are licenses (legal territory) which are Open Source, and there are licenses (such as the ones used by NumWorks) which are not. And, to top it off, they are not Open Hardware either. And I'd suggest great care on avoiding the misuse of "Open Source", as the OSI might invoke their right to protect their trademarks[0]. [0] https://opensource.org/trademark-guidelines https://opensource.org/trademark-guidelines
- kergonath 6y ago
  > When a claim of "open source" is wrongly made in the interest of marketing, the expectation should be for this misrepresentation to be called for. On the other hand, nobody has a monopoly on the “open source” concept, or even on putting the “open” qualifier in front of things. Broadly speaking, source code ranges from completely closed to completely open, and it is difficult to argue that code under a CC licence is not more open than, say, Windows’. Or indeed the usual calculator operating systems. It is like the free software flame wars all over again, this time with the OSI in place of the FSF.

snvzz 6y ago

>The points raised in your comment are more ideological than practical. The primary point is that this is neither Open Source nor Free Software, by OSI and FSF definitions of these terms, which are the generally accepted ones. When a claim of "open source" is wrongly made in the interest of marketing, the expectation should be for this misrepresentation to be called for.

zepto 6y ago
> which are the generally accepted ones. They really aren’t. These are colloquial terms, not trademarks. > When a claim of "open source" is wrongly made in the interest of marketing, the expectation should be for this misrepresentation to be called for. It’s not a misrepresentation. “Open source” is a generic term. Pretending it has a legal meaning is just not a reflection of reality.
- snvzz 6y ago
  >They really aren’t. These are colloquial terms, not trademarks. They are terms with strong definitions that are well accepted in the community, including the industry. >It’s not a misrepresentation. “Open source” is a generic term. It isn't. See above. >Pretending it has a legal meaning is just not a reflection of reality. Nobody said a thing (yet) about legal meaning. However, there are licenses (legal territory) which are Open Source, and there are licenses (such as the ones used by NumWorks) which are not. And, to top it off, they are not Open Hardware either. And I'd suggest great care on avoiding the misuse of "Open Source", as the OSI might invoke their right to protect their trademarks[0]. [0] https://opensource.org/trademark-guidelines https://opensource.org/trademark-guidelines
kergonath 6y ago
> When a claim of "open source" is wrongly made in the interest of marketing, the expectation should be for this misrepresentation to be called for. On the other hand, nobody has a monopoly on the “open source” concept, or even on putting the “open” qualifier in front of things. Broadly speaking, source code ranges from completely closed to completely open, and it is difficult to argue that code under a CC licence is not more open than, say, Windows’. Or indeed the usual calculator operating systems. It is like the free software flame wars all over again, this time with the OSI in place of the FSF.