3 ms·

There isn't a singular definition of open source that everyone agrees with.

• justinclift 3y ago
  Bullshit. "Open Source" is well established, and has been for just over two decades: https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/ That some people - like yourself - want to muddy the waters is neither here nor there.
  • dingledork69 3y ago
    No. That's just some people who registered a website and put up their organizations definition. The website milk.com doesn't get to define what the word milk means, either. To some people Open Source means that the Source is publicly viewable. It doesn't say anything about your rights to use it commercially. This is why people often bring up definitions such as "libre", "free as in beer" or "free as in speech"
    • justinclift 3y ago
      Heh, yeah good luck with that. The real question is why are you trying to muddy the waters of the existing term, rather than inventing your own term and getting people to use that?
      • dingledork69 3y ago
        Like I already explained to you, not everyone agrees on the definition of open source. You have your definition, the open source foundation has theirs, and other people have their own. It is not a well defined term. Why are you pretending you get to define the english language for everyone?
        • justinclift 3y ago
          Yeah, good luck with that. :)