3 ms·
Earnestly, what's the concern here? People complain about open source being mostly beneficial to megacorps, if that's the main change (idk I haven't looked too
by mkmk3 10mo ago
Earnestly, what's the concern here? People complain about open source being mostly beneficial to megacorps, if that's the main change (idk I haven't looked too closely) then that's pretty good, no?
- JimDabell 10mo agoThey are claiming something is open-source when it isn’t. Regardless of whether you think the deviation from open-source is a good thing or not, you should still be in favour of honesty.
- fastball 10mo ago*according to your definition of open-source
- JimDabell 10mo agoNo, according to the commonly accepted definition of open-source. Whenever anybody tries to claim that a non-commercial licenses is open-source, it always gets complaints that it is not open-source. This particular word hasn’t been watered down by misuse like so many others. There is no commonly-accepted definition of open-source that allows commercial restrictions. You do not get to make up your own meaning for words that differs from how other people use it. Open-source does not have commercial restrictions by definition.
- fastball 10mo agoWhere are you getting this compendium of commonly-accepted definitions? Looking up open-source in the dictionary does include definitions that would allow for commercial restrictions, depending on how you define "free" (a matter that is most certainly up for debate).
- whimblepop 10mo ago"Open-source" isn't a term that emerged organically from conversations between people. It is a term that was very deliberately coined for a specific purpose, defined into existence by an authority. It's a term of art, and its exact definition is available here: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd The term "open-source" exists for the purposes of a particular movement. If you are "for" the misuse and abuse of the term, you not only aren't part of that movement, but you are ignorant about it and fail to understand it— which means you frankly have no place speaking about the meanings of its terminology.
- fastball 10mo agoyeahhhhhhh, that's not how this works. Unless this authority has some ownership over the term and can prevent its misuse (e.g. with lawsuits or similar), it is not actually the authority of the term, and people will continue to use it how they see fit. Indeed, I am not part of a movement (nor would I want to be) which focuses more on what words are used rather than what actions are taken.
- JoshTriplett 10mo ago> people will continue to use it how they see fit. People can also say 2+2=5, and they're wrong. And people will continue to call them out on it. And we will keep doing so, because stopping lets people move the Overton window and try to get away with even more.
- fastball 10mo ago2+2 is a mathematical concept. Definitions do not need to be agreed upon beyond fundamental axioms. The same is not true for "open source", which is a purely linguistic construct.
- whimblepop 10mo agoWhat the symbol "2" refers to is a matter of convention, just like with any ordinary word.
- udev4096 10mo ago[flagged]
- fastball 10mo agoIs there some Open Source™ council I am unaware of that bequeaths the open source moniker on certain licenses?
- JoshTriplett 10mo ago*according to the industry standard definition of Open Source This kind of thing is how people try to shift the Overton window. No.
- badsectoracula 10mo agoMainly about the dilution of the term. Though TBH i do not think that open source is beneficial mostly to megacorps either.