3 ms·
BSD fits the modern open source definition. Martin's article pleads with readers not to be pedantic when using the term, but offers no alternative definition,
by rpdillon 5y ago
BSD fits the modern open source definition.
Martin's article pleads with readers not to be pedantic when using the term, but offers no alternative definition, beyond 'let people use it when they can read source code'. Perhaps that's the proposed usage you and Martin prefer?
If I'm understanding your position correctly, perhaps you would agree that Ocarina of Time has now been released as open source?
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021/11/reverse-engineering-team-completes-its-ocarina-of-time-decompilation/ https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021/11/reverse-engineering-t...
If so, the term is uselessly vague, as it says nothing about the rights of the licensee. In this sense, 'Free Software' has much more meaning...perhaps RMS was onto something!
- chrisseaton 5y ago> offers no alternative definition If the OSI picked a term that wasn't simply descriptive they could trademark it, then they could enforce their definition and there would be no ambiguity. That would be better for everyone.
- rpdillon 5y agoWithout delving into how distinctive a mark has to be, that ship has sailed: I see no path to changing the term now.