> The common phrase for this is "source available" I know! Unfortunately that one doesn't seem to quite catch on beyond open source advocates (see my other nea

> The common phrase for this is "source available" I know! Unfortunately that one doesn't seem to quite catch on beyond open source advocates (see my other nearby comment) > Open Source has a -legal- meaning - in the sense that Open Source Licenses are legal documents which specifically cover what can and can't be done. Does it? As in, is there any law-binding document that universally states what it means? Or has it been ruled anywhere what is or isn't open source? (respecting license terms may have been challenged, that as much is true, but that's about the license contents, not what is or isn't "open source") I may very well be unaware of such a thing existing, and I would be glad to learn there is, but the FSF or OSI or the collective mindhive of hackers (in the jargon file sense; and not saying that derogatorily) or whatever saying "this is what Open Source is", while a powerful community statement, is not particularly law-binding. AIUI even among the proponents they even kind of disagree on what "open source" is and is not. > "Free Speech" doesn't mean what most people think it means. Neither does "Constitutional Right". These, comparatively, are legally defined. > To you, defending the term becomes pedantry. I didn't mean to imply that I was personally thinking it was pedantry, only that it can (and often is) perceived as such. I am very much in favour of using proper terms, but I also recognise that it may not be as useful as one might think to fight the semantic fight in order to properly fight the value fight. > So forgive us please if we hold tightly to what was so hard won. Please, continue to hold tightly! Although sometimes one realises they can't ever hope to convince others they're "wrong", so maybe there are other ways to win... "You can't win, but there are alternatives to fighting." As a believer in and advocate of FOSS, I found it much more effective to battle on the value grounds instead of losing the audience right away, instead reaching out into their level of understanding. More often than not, they end up educating themselves down the road. Kind of a "use the opponent's weight against them" move.