4 ms·

I think it's first important to define what we're talking about, before talking about it. If a certain set of people have 'a very clear and very specific meanin

I think it's first important to define what we're talking about, before talking about it. If a certain set of people have 'a very clear and very specific meaning' of what it is, and another set 'doesn't really have the clear specific meaning', then I think it's pretty obvious which definition we should go with.

Beltalowda 5y ago
It's not obvious at all. There are many people who have all sorts of very specific ideas about language and how it ought to be used. They are usually ignored by everyone except themselves and people who agree with them already. I don't get why so many people are so obsessed with language. Over the last few decades terabytes of data has been used to discus this, and to what effect? I would actually argue it's been a net-negative since it has put many people off, and has been a distraction from far more pressing matters.
- bawolff 5y ago
  If you're talking hacker vs cracker, linux vs GNU/linux, then sure, its mostly a waste of air. As far as "open source" goes, its in essence a brand of a cultural movement. And like real brands, some unscrupulous people want to enrich themselves off the brand by making a substandard product but pretending its the real thing. This is harmful to users who are swindled and it is harmful to open source devs whose reputation are stained by association. (To make the metaphor concrete, an example of a swindle would be someone makes open source software which isnt really, then sues all its users that use it in an open source fashion. This hurts the users, but also hurts people who make open source software because people cant trust the brand anymore)
  - ttybird2 5y ago
    "And like real brands, some unscrupulous people want to enrich themselves off the brand by making a substandard product but pretending its the real thing" I am unsure if you mean the OSI people or the people who disagree with the OSI definition here.
- yawaramin 5y ago
  People are obsessed about it because on one side you have a bunch of people trying to redefine it to mean whatever set of obligations they feel like e.g. 'You open sourced it so now you're responsible for it' etc. etc. and on the other side you have people trying to hold the line and say 'No, that's not what open source means'. You're basically arguing to turn 'OSS' into a meaningless blob of text that anyone can interpret as they like.

Beltalowda 5y ago

It's not obvious at all. There are many people who have all sorts of very specific ideas about language and how it ought to be used. They are usually ignored by everyone except themselves and people who agree with them already. I don't get why so many people are so obsessed with language. Over the last few decades terabytes of data has been used to discus this, and to what effect? I would actually argue it's been a net-negative since it has put many people off, and has been a distraction from far more pressing matters.

bawolff 5y ago
If you're talking hacker vs cracker, linux vs GNU/linux, then sure, its mostly a waste of air. As far as "open source" goes, its in essence a brand of a cultural movement. And like real brands, some unscrupulous people want to enrich themselves off the brand by making a substandard product but pretending its the real thing. This is harmful to users who are swindled and it is harmful to open source devs whose reputation are stained by association. (To make the metaphor concrete, an example of a swindle would be someone makes open source software which isnt really, then sues all its users that use it in an open source fashion. This hurts the users, but also hurts people who make open source software because people cant trust the brand anymore)
- ttybird2 5y ago
  "And like real brands, some unscrupulous people want to enrich themselves off the brand by making a substandard product but pretending its the real thing" I am unsure if you mean the OSI people or the people who disagree with the OSI definition here.
yawaramin 5y ago
People are obsessed about it because on one side you have a bunch of people trying to redefine it to mean whatever set of obligations they feel like e.g. 'You open sourced it so now you're responsible for it' etc. etc. and on the other side you have people trying to hold the line and say 'No, that's not what open source means'. You're basically arguing to turn 'OSS' into a meaningless blob of text that anyone can interpret as they like.