2 ms·

> Plenty of us think open source means the source is an open book to be read, not a right to take and republish. No. The term “Open Source” was defined to have

by teddyh 5y ago

> Plenty of us think open source means the source is an open book to be read, not a right to take and republish. No. The term “Open Source” was defined to have its meaning at the time of its creation by the OSI. You have no right to redefine it to suit your wishes or preferences. The FSF does not agree with your definition, contrary to what you imply by selectively quoting them. Your quote comes from a text where FSF argues that the selection by the OSI of “Open Source” as a term was a bad choice, since it can be misinterpreted as simply “you can look at the source code”. This text should then obviously not be understood to be an official statement about what FSF believes “Open Source” to actually mean. Also, neither “Open Source” nor “Free Software” imply any right to “take”, as you put it. Both terms are instead about what someone already in possession of the code is allowed to do with that code. Your world view may be sensible and internally consistent, but it does not appear to entirely match what either the FSF or the OSI says.

Terretta 5y ago
Plenty of us disagree with your flat “No” meaning it’s neither flat nor even no. Not because we redefined OSS, but because it is colloquially defined. As regards FSF, I feel their point and mine is the terminology turned out not clear, as the pure definition you cite failed to stick. Language evolves, usage evolves, definitions are owned by the living and refuse to be gatekept. Things now “mean” the concepts they generally elicit rather than what they may have elicited in the past. In this case, the purist concept is tracked by the newer terminology; the ‘misperception’ is now disambiguated into its casual non-practioner use. By claiming both terms still label one concept, you are not among the ‘plenty of us’ recognizing convention evolved, and we are aware you disagree. But props for still trying to hold the line! Sorry, granted, there is a legal definition of ‘taking’. In this case, I didn’t intend to redefine ‘take’ as meaning not in possession. Instruction to “take a hammer and drive a nail” doesn’t mean one starts by robbing a store. Of course, the muddle over those rights is why the even further suggestion of ‘Libre’ over ‘Free’ over ‘Open’. Put another way, I strictly agree with you, but it’s futile since in the end casuals define things. It’s not your Open Source, it’s Nacho Libre! ... (Sorry. :-)

by teddyh 5y ago

Terretta 5y ago

Plenty of us disagree with your flat “No” meaning it’s neither flat nor even no. Not because we redefined OSS, but because it is colloquially defined. As regards FSF, I feel their point and mine is the terminology turned out not clear, as the pure definition you cite failed to stick. Language evolves, usage evolves, definitions are owned by the living and refuse to be gatekept. Things now “mean” the concepts they generally elicit rather than what they may have elicited in the past. In this case, the purist concept is tracked by the newer terminology; the ‘misperception’ is now disambiguated into its casual non-practioner use. By claiming both terms still label one concept, you are not among the ‘plenty of us’ recognizing convention evolved, and we are aware you disagree. But props for still trying to hold the line! Sorry, granted, there is a legal definition of ‘taking’. In this case, I didn’t intend to redefine ‘take’ as meaning not in possession. Instruction to “take a hammer and drive a nail” doesn’t mean one starts by robbing a store. Of course, the muddle over those rights is why the even further suggestion of ‘Libre’ over ‘Free’ over ‘Open’. Put another way, I strictly agree with you, but it’s futile since in the end casuals define things. It’s not your Open Source, it’s Nacho Libre! ... (Sorry. :-)