3 ms·

You might think so, I might think so, but apparently there's some gatekeeping about the term dating back to its invention in the 20th century. https://en.wikip

You might think so, I might think so, but apparently there's some gatekeeping about the term dating back to its invention in the 20th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licenses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-so... "This article may be confusing or unclear to readers." Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source - Richard Stallman argues the "obvious meaning" of term "open source" is that the source code is public/accessible for inspection, without necessarily any other rights granted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_terms_for_free_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_terms_for_free_sof... - In a 1998 strategy session in California, "open-source software" was selected by Todd Anderson, Larry Augustin, Jon Hall, Sam Ockman, Christine Peterson, and Eric S. Raymond. Richard Stallman had not been invited. I'm getting downvoted now for dissenting. :D

prophesi 2y ago
I would also agree that the common sense definition of open source should be public/accessible code. But FOSS is a well-established movement and anyone involved with software development should be well-acquainted with Free vs Open.
- card_zero 2y ago
  So you mean the actual definition should not be the common sense one? That's probably pragmatic, yes.
  - Brian_K_White 2y ago
    Almost every word has some special meaning depending on the context it's used in. This is not controvercial. This is a silly argument to try to make a thing out of.
    - card_zero 2y ago
      Jargon terms are necessary for specialists, it's true. Berry, for instance, technically includes tomatoes and cucumbers, but not strawberries or raspberries. So if somebody says "I just bought some berries" you should inspect their purchases and correct them accordingly, because maintaining correctness is important.
teddyh 2y ago
You’re being downvoted for: 1. Calling proper nomenclature “gatekeeping”. 2. Selectively quoting people to seem like they disagree, where in fact no such disagreement exists.
- card_zero 2y ago
  I wasn't sure about (2), I must admit, only that the history of the term is complicated. Stallman seems less attached to it than the others.
  - teddyh 2y ago
    As far as I understand, Stallman is not supportive of promoting or using the term, but he does not disagree with the OSI’s definition. But I quite often see trolls trying to claim that he does, since if the term is disputed, it opens up for what the trolls really want to do, which is always to illegitimately market their proprietary software (with abominable license terms) as “open source”.

prophesi 2y ago

I would also agree that the common sense definition of open source should be public/accessible code. But FOSS is a well-established movement and anyone involved with software development should be well-acquainted with Free vs Open.

card_zero 2y ago
So you mean the actual definition should not be the common sense one? That's probably pragmatic, yes.
- Brian_K_White 2y ago
  Almost every word has some special meaning depending on the context it's used in. This is not controvercial. This is a silly argument to try to make a thing out of.
  - card_zero 2y ago
    Jargon terms are necessary for specialists, it's true. Berry, for instance, technically includes tomatoes and cucumbers, but not strawberries or raspberries. So if somebody says "I just bought some berries" you should inspect their purchases and correct them accordingly, because maintaining correctness is important.

teddyh 2y ago

You’re being downvoted for: 1. Calling proper nomenclature “gatekeeping”. 2. Selectively quoting people to seem like they disagree, where in fact no such disagreement exists.

card_zero 2y ago
I wasn't sure about (2), I must admit, only that the history of the term is complicated. Stallman seems less attached to it than the others.
- teddyh 2y ago
  As far as I understand, Stallman is not supportive of promoting or using the term, but he does not disagree with the OSI’s definition. But I quite often see trolls trying to claim that he does, since if the term is disputed, it opens up for what the trolls really want to do, which is always to illegitimately market their proprietary software (with abominable license terms) as “open source”.