3 ms·
Unfortunately people need to think about how they use words. Definitions exist for a reason, otherwise meaning is lost and confusion reigns. The legal definitio
by 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 agoFirstly, 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”!?
- jaggs 4y ago>> they “need to think about how they use words” Yeah I know, but we've got to try, right? Otherwise it's anarchy out there. :) >> 'legal redress'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license_litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license_litigation
- _benedict 4y agoI don’t see anything there on the use of the term open source, just lots of open source related disputes?