> Why is the term "Open Source" used to refer to publicly available information? Well, why not? "Source" has long referred to available information. In fact,

> Why is the term "Open Source" used to refer to publicly available information? Well, why not? "Source" has long referred to available information. In fact, you probably won't have to read HN long before you encounter a "source plz"-type meme, intended to mean something akin to: "Please point me to the available information that supports your claim." "Open" has long referred to available information that is accessible to users. "Open source[code]" uses "open" in the same way. PAT works too but I'm not sure it communicates anything meaningfully different. As far as I can tell, they are trying to communicate the very same thing. Is your reaction, perhaps, because you are accustomed to "open source" being used in the software sense? > Do we refer to street dogs as open source dogs? Dogs haven't typically been seen as information, so, for all practical purposes, probably not. But if we want to change that, sure, why not? Language doesn't have feelings. It doesn't care.