3 ms·
> 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 t
by zepto 5y 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 5y 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