3 ms·

Please don't say 'fully open source', as it confuses the language. "Open Source" is a well-defined term[0] . What Tom Preston-Warner describes there is basical

• publicfig 12y ago
  Notice he says that it wouldn't be fully open source.
  • chc 12y ago
    Of course chimeracoder noticed this. That's what he was talking about. Because "open-source" is a binary condition, being "not fully open-source" is like being "not fully pregnant" — the phrase is just an equivocation that ultimately means the same thing as "not open-source."
    • jkrems 12y ago
      But a family with three daughters can be "not fully pregnant". Parts are pregnant, parts are not.
      • chc 12y ago
        I don't think anybody would ever say a family with three daughters was "not fully pregnant." You would say some members of the family are pregnant and others aren't. And anyway, this wasn't the sense in which Preston-Warner used the phrase — he did describe what he meant, and it was not open-source software. It was, as chimeracoder said, similar to Microsoft's "shared source" program.
      • ajanuary 12y ago
        A better phrase would have been "not entirely open-source".