4 ms·

Natural language is indeed ambiguous. Words tend to vary in meaning from time to time. So legal documents gave to precisely define a lot of terms, and Latin is

Natural language is indeed ambiguous. Words tend to vary in meaning from time to time. So legal documents gave to precisely define a lot of terms, and Latin is also used (because meanings there dont change.) Take the phrase "Open Source" as an example. Us old folk ascribe specific meaning to that term - typically based on the legalese in Open Source licenses. However the next generation have imbued it with their own (various) definitions. This leads to endless back and forth. For example I recently pointed out that SQLite is Public Donain, not Open Source. (With predictable pushback.) Today, in other thread someone claimed "its not really open Source unless its in git, and on github". And the distinction between Free Software and Open Source is seldom understood. So yeah, legal documents are gard to parse because they can't take "common meaning" for granted.

mdaniel 2y ago
> "its not really open Source unless its in git, and on github". Heh, mine is even more strict: to me, it's not really open source unless I can build it since if I cannot compile the project, I cannot change it for my needs and/or send those tested changes back upstream I have a second 2nd level "requirement" about packaging it in a sane distribution format, because I don't think any reasonable person wants to have a .desktop file that is $(cd /home/src/foo; npx run whatever "$@"). I'm looking at you, Chromium, since I can get it to build just fine but count the number of hand-rolled /usr/bin/install calls https://github.com/archlinuxarm/PKGBUILDs/blob/741f8edf84c7b79516716b124ccfd53e901cf0e7/extra/chromium/PKGBUILD#L308-L375 https://github.com/archlinuxarm/PKGBUILDs/blob/741f8edf84c7b... because evidently the $(make DESTDIR= install) is just kidding
Terr_ 2y ago
Or like the old quip: "Free as in speech, not free as in beer."
Gigachad 2y ago
Open source only became confusing because Richard stallman made it his life mission to try to redefine the meaning of free in a way that would confuse people for decades to come.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- liontwist 2y ago
  There is no open source without stallman. After decades of advocacy and organizing his ideas have been moderated for mainstream success. Work on big technical projects like Linux was also a strong signal for employers. For years now that signal has been a target to emulate so a. Lot of “open source” became FAANG resume building.
- bruce511 2y ago
  Free Software predates Open Source, so that's not an ideal conflating. I get where you are coming from though. The choice of the word "Free" in "Free Software" isn't ideal because the word "Free" has multiple meanings. Most people (especially non-tech users) assume it means "no cost" rather than "unencumbered". So yes, it would have been simpler either a different name. Hindsight is perfect. That said Free Software is different to Open Source (although lots of tech folk conflate the two.) That aside, it doesn't stop people adding their own (incorrect) requirements or expectations, as seen elsewhere in this thread.

mdaniel 2y ago

> "its not really open Source unless its in git, and on github". Heh, mine is even more strict: to me, it's not really open source unless I can build it since if I cannot compile the project, I cannot change it for my needs and/or send those tested changes back upstream I have a second 2nd level "requirement" about packaging it in a sane distribution format, because I don't think any reasonable person wants to have a .desktop file that is $(cd /home/src/foo; npx run whatever "$@"). I'm looking at you, Chromium, since I can get it to build just fine but count the number of hand-rolled /usr/bin/install calls https://github.com/archlinuxarm/PKGBUILDs/blob/741f8edf84c7b79516716b124ccfd53e901cf0e7/extra/chromium/PKGBUILD#L308-L375 https://github.com/archlinuxarm/PKGBUILDs/blob/741f8edf84c7b... because evidently the $(make DESTDIR= install) is just kidding

Terr_ 2y ago

Or like the old quip: "Free as in speech, not free as in beer."

Gigachad 2y ago

Open source only became confusing because Richard stallman made it his life mission to try to redefine the meaning of free in a way that would confuse people for decades to come.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
liontwist 2y ago
There is no open source without stallman. After decades of advocacy and organizing his ideas have been moderated for mainstream success. Work on big technical projects like Linux was also a strong signal for employers. For years now that signal has been a target to emulate so a. Lot of “open source” became FAANG resume building.
bruce511 2y ago
Free Software predates Open Source, so that's not an ideal conflating. I get where you are coming from though. The choice of the word "Free" in "Free Software" isn't ideal because the word "Free" has multiple meanings. Most people (especially non-tech users) assume it means "no cost" rather than "unencumbered". So yes, it would have been simpler either a different name. Hindsight is perfect. That said Free Software is different to Open Source (although lots of tech folk conflate the two.) That aside, it doesn't stop people adding their own (incorrect) requirements or expectations, as seen elsewhere in this thread.