2 ms·
Is it now? I was under the assumption it was an ideological definition, at least that's how people present every time one of these projects are even a smidge of
by ianbutler 4y ago
Is it now? I was under the assumption it was an ideological definition, at least that's how people present every time one of these projects are even a smidge off from the OSI definition.
I don't think most major Open Source projects in the last 10 years have even once considered,
'E.g. if software is Open Source, it can be included in a Linux distribution.'
That is exactly what I mean by "out of touch".
If I had to guess the primary motivator for being Open Source, are the communal and moral aspects of it.
- jdub 4y agoSoftware Freedom is an ideology. Open Source is a definition.
- ianbutler 4y agoWell the trademark is going the way of bandaid, and definitions change regularly. Edit: I see you edited that part out.
- jdub 4y agoThe OSI definition hasn't changed. It barely changed what it borrowed from the Debian Free Software Guidelines before that. ("Open Source" itself isn't a trademark, but the OSI bits are, so I removed it to avoid confusion.) (There's no indication that the legal construction of a trademark is "going the way of the bandaid", or that bandaids are "going the way of the bandaid" for that matter.)