3 ms·
I genuinely have no idea what N-Point definition of open source you’re using. The term “open source” doesn’t have a singular definition. I liked the comment so
by forrestthewoods 3y ago
I genuinely have no idea what N-Point definition of open source you’re using.
The term “open source” doesn’t have a singular definition. I liked the comment somewhere in this thread that if you stuck 5 HN users in a room you’d get 12 definitions for open source.
Sounds like people need to come with more precise terms like “GNU Open Source” or similar. Because at this point we’ve gone too far and there will never be a singular definition for “open source”.
- frabcus 3y agoThis was a huge thing in the 1990s - yes there is a singular definition, by the Open Source Initiative https://opensource.org/ https://opensource.org/ That's a good thing, because otherwise corporations constantly try to stretch the definition and make it meaningless. Same then, same now!
- forrestthewoods 3y agoOSI has done a poor job in their mission because they’ve failed to define the spectrum of projects between “personal definition or open source” and “fully closed source”. And now everyone is using the term open source in a manner they did not sanction. Because their definition is not particularly relevant.