8 ms·

No, it means some people started using the word differently, no more no less. Cool your own use of language, I don’t think it’s at all appropriate or within HN

No, it means some people started using the word differently, no more no less. Cool your own use of language, I don’t think it’s at all appropriate or within HN guidelines.

bheadmaster 4y ago
Blow it out your ass. People are using the word differently, and the community is telling them to stop using the words differently because it's misleading. What exactly are you arguing, that community should not do that? That, you know, the open source community should not tell people to stop using the term "open source" incorrectly? I'll cool my own language when you stop presenting your reductionist Philosophy 101 "it's just words bro" arguments without doing any further analysis. It's just words bro so why do you care that I said I had sex with your mother last night? Maybe I meant it as a compliment!
- dang 4y ago
  Breaking the site guidelines like this is not ok here, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
bheadmaster 4y ago
(Re-commenting because apparently you didn't like the way I use words, how ironic.) People are using the word differently, and the community is telling them to stop using the words differently because it's misleading. What exactly are you arguing, that community should not do that? That, you know, the open source community should not tell people to stop using the term "open source" incorrectly?
- _benedict 4y ago
  I’m a member of the open source community, so “the” community isn’t telling them anything. But, no, I’ve quite clearly stated you can argue they shouldn’t use that definition. But you cannot credibly say that their usage is wrong if they are successfully communicating with others using that definition. The word will change usage, or it won’t, and neither of us will probably have any say over it.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    They are not successfully communicating with others, as the majority of people expect Open Source software to grant you some rights that the software in question doesn't, which is why it's misleading, or in other words, wrong. You can use your words in whatever way you want with whatever people you want, but can't deliberately ignore the widely-adopted definitions because "language changes" and claim everyone else is wrong and your microcosmos is right. Wake me up when language actually changes (i.e. when the majority adopts the new definition) and then we'll talk.
    - _benedict 4y ago
      That’s an empirical claim, and I’m not sure what you’re basing it on? There’s literal dictionaries that disagree with you, so plenty of credibility to the alternative meanings.
      - bheadmaster 4y ago
        There's an official OSI definition [1] that agrees with me, so your "dictionaries" should fix their wrong definitions. [1] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
        _benedict 4y ago
jaggs 4y ago
But that's the whole point. You can't just stand up and say 'i don't agree with your use of the word, therefore I'm going to change it'. That's the most ridiculous idea ever. Hey guys guess what, I now declare that the word 'murder' no longer means killing someone.
- _benedict 4y ago
  But nobody’s doing that? I think a bunch of people basically never agreed with you on the definition, it just never mattered much as the distinction didn’t matter yet. Most people don’t think much about how they use words, they just use them. To use your example, it might be that murder evolved from meaning “a crime has been committed” to meaning a specific crime. Which, um, is exactly what happened.
  - jaggs 4y ago
    Unfortunately people need to think about how they use words. Definitions exist for a reason, otherwise meaning is lost and confusion reigns. The legal definition of murder didn't haphazardly evolve, it was deliberately enshrined in statute and common law (to include intent, unlawfulness etc). The definition of open source is the same. It's not a random thing, it has specific elements which make up the definition. You may not like or agree with those elements, but then it's probably better that you go off and a) define something else for your purposes b) ignore the definition and be subject to legal redress if you contravene the definition. One useful place to start with the definition (and there are, of course, many specific types of licenses, some of which are more restrictive than others) is https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
    - _benedict 4y ago
      Firstly, the Oxford English Dictionary uses a different definition, as does Wikipedia. It’s far from clear why we would prefer OSD, and by these other definitions you’re the one using the word incorrectly. Secondly, good luck convincing everyone they “need to think about how they use words” Thirdly, “legal redress”!?

No, it means some people started using the word differently, no more no less. Cool your own use of language, I don’t think it’s at all appropriate or within HN guidelines.

bheadmaster 4y ago

Blow it out your ass. People are using the word differently, and the community is telling them to stop using the words differently because it's misleading. What exactly are you arguing, that community should not do that? That, you know, the open source community should not tell people to stop using the term "open source" incorrectly? I'll cool my own language when you stop presenting your reductionist Philosophy 101 "it's just words bro" arguments without doing any further analysis. It's just words bro so why do you care that I said I had sex with your mother last night? Maybe I meant it as a compliment!

dang 4y ago
Breaking the site guidelines like this is not ok here, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

bheadmaster 4y ago

(Re-commenting because apparently you didn't like the way I use words, how ironic.) People are using the word differently, and the community is telling them to stop using the words differently because it's misleading. What exactly are you arguing, that community should not do that? That, you know, the open source community should not tell people to stop using the term "open source" incorrectly?

_benedict 4y ago
I’m a member of the open source community, so “the” community isn’t telling them anything. But, no, I’ve quite clearly stated you can argue they shouldn’t use that definition. But you cannot credibly say that their usage is wrong if they are successfully communicating with others using that definition. The word will change usage, or it won’t, and neither of us will probably have any say over it.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  They are not successfully communicating with others, as the majority of people expect Open Source software to grant you some rights that the software in question doesn't, which is why it's misleading, or in other words, wrong. You can use your words in whatever way you want with whatever people you want, but can't deliberately ignore the widely-adopted definitions because "language changes" and claim everyone else is wrong and your microcosmos is right. Wake me up when language actually changes (i.e. when the majority adopts the new definition) and then we'll talk.
  - _benedict 4y ago
    That’s an empirical claim, and I’m not sure what you’re basing it on? There’s literal dictionaries that disagree with you, so plenty of credibility to the alternative meanings.
    - bheadmaster 4y ago
      There's an official OSI definition [1] that agrees with me, so your "dictionaries" should fix their wrong definitions. [1] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
      - _benedict 4y ago

jaggs 4y ago

But that's the whole point. You can't just stand up and say 'i don't agree with your use of the word, therefore I'm going to change it'. That's the most ridiculous idea ever. Hey guys guess what, I now declare that the word 'murder' no longer means killing someone.

_benedict 4y ago
But nobody’s doing that? I think a bunch of people basically never agreed with you on the definition, it just never mattered much as the distinction didn’t matter yet. Most people don’t think much about how they use words, they just use them. To use your example, it might be that murder evolved from meaning “a crime has been committed” to meaning a specific crime. Which, um, is exactly what happened.
- jaggs 4y ago
  Unfortunately people need to think about how they use words. Definitions exist for a reason, otherwise meaning is lost and confusion reigns. The legal definition of murder didn't haphazardly evolve, it was deliberately enshrined in statute and common law (to include intent, unlawfulness etc). The definition of open source is the same. It's not a random thing, it has specific elements which make up the definition. You may not like or agree with those elements, but then it's probably better that you go off and a) define something else for your purposes b) ignore the definition and be subject to legal redress if you contravene the definition. One useful place to start with the definition (and there are, of course, many specific types of licenses, some of which are more restrictive than others) is https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
  - _benedict 4y ago
    Firstly, the Oxford English Dictionary uses a different definition, as does Wikipedia. It’s far from clear why we would prefer OSD, and by these other definitions you’re the one using the word incorrectly. Secondly, good luck convincing everyone they “need to think about how they use words” Thirdly, “legal redress”!?