4 ms·
Hence the 'quotes.' Seems pretty relevant as this article is all about the author understanding open source in the way Atlassian e.a. do it.
by mtrimpe 12y ago
Hence the 'quotes.' Seems pretty relevant as this article is all about the author understanding open source in the way Atlassian e.a. do it.
- parasubvert 12y agoThe open source initiative (OSI) was the organization that originally promoted open source (as an alternative to the FSF and "free software"), along with certifying licenses as being "open source". Perhaps it's a generational thing for those that weren't old enough or weren't paying attention in 1998 - they even tried unsuccessfully to trademark "open source" to avoid the sorts of confusions with what Atlassian (or even Splunk) have. That said I'd say the problem with the OP thread isn't even about "open source", it's about misunderstanding copyright vs. patents.
- scrollaway 12y agoThe term you are looking for is "Source-available". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Open-source_vs._source-available https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Open-sour...
- mtrimpe 12y agoThe first sentence of that paragraph being: Although the OSI definition of "open source software" is widely accepted, a small number of people and organizations use the term to refer to software where the source is available for viewing, but which may not legally be modified or redistributed. Which is exactly the point I wanted to make: that there is no one true definition of open source and that, although most technically inclined people agree, there is room for confusion/disagreement. If these sorts of contributions are worthy of downvotes these days then I really don't know what I'm doing here anymore :S