I do not buy Martin Tournoij’s argument as it essentially boils down to “no one owns a language” and “there is some prior use that I could find”. Term formation

I do not buy Martin Tournoij’s argument as it essentially boils down to “no one owns a language” and “there is some prior use that I could find”. Term formation is – as Martin rightfully points out – messy and taking this first-mention approach poorly reflects how consensus around meaning forms among us humans. My take is (I think) pragmatic. I know for a fact that both OSI and FSF had a desire to delineate terms for their own agendas (both of which have been stated in the open). Both worked hard over decades to explore the implications of their definitions and we as a society also worked with them to form some kind of consensus of what these terms mean. Heck, it is not like Free Software is not problematic as a term due to the ambiguity (and prior usage…) of the word free and FSF has discussed this at great length. Likewise, Open Source is of course flawed as a term in its own way, but it is not useful to start muddying the waters around the term at this point as there is a consensus in place that allows us to have a discussion about Open Source and its flaws to begin with. The Ethical Source movement for example object to both Open Source and Free Software licenses, while still adhering to freely sharing code. Great! I happen to disagree with them, but I think their reasoning is fine and they decided to invent their own (obviously faulty in some ways) term to delineate themselves from those they disagree with. Similarly, I wish this anti-corporate, source-available, whatever proto-movement that keeps popping up would get together, write a manifesto, and come up with a name rather than dive into discussions such as this and try to somehow argue that when the great majority of us used Open Source as a term for the last twenty or so years what we actually had in mind included licenses which restricted fields of use and discriminated against persons and/or groups. Sorry, I do not buy that, not even for a second. As something mildly tangential. I find it confusing that members of this proto-movement seems to both support venture capital-fueled start-ups such as Hugging Face and at the same time frequently uses Marxist-esque terms. Heck, I have also seen attacks on Open Source authors from people using alt-right terms. Maybe there is more than one new movement out there? Regardless, I look forward to seeing what term they end up using and reading their reasoning and definition when they finally stop arguing semantics.