massonpj

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by massonpj 8y ago

   As mentioned elsewhere, the original debates around "open source", as both a term and movement, centered around "free" vs. "open", or the value, benefits, ethics, etc. of copyleft/reciprocal licenses vs. p
2. 2.▲
   by massonpj 8y ago

   > "Definitions don't belong to committees" > "[...]irony in the OSI talking about open source like they own it[...]" The definition (and it's authority/legitimacy) belongs to (i.e. owned by) a commun
3. 3.▲
   by massonpj 8y ago

   The term "open source" can not be trademarked (just like Kilogram can not); the mark is too "descriptive." The OSI does have trademarks for "OSI Approved Open Source License", as well of course for its own bran