4 ms·
I just disagree and use a different definition of open source than you/your sources (many people share my definition, mind you). If the source is open, its open
by gcau 3y ago
I just disagree and use a different definition of open source than you/your sources (many people share my definition, mind you). If the source is open, its open-source. It can be free, commercial, or have any license. I feel like people with the other definition of OS, do it because they have a vendetta against companies that open-source code with a non-free license.
- memefrog 3y ago>I feel like people with the other definition of OS, do it because they have a vendetta against companies that open-source code with a non-free license. No. It is because that's what the term means and has *ALWAYS* meant. You don't get to just turn up and change the definition of a term that has been fixed and useful as a term for decades. This isn't the evolution of language. It's just you ignorantly being unaware of the actual definition and using your own.
- gcau 3y agoI can and I am.