| |
| ▲ | JimDabell 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | No, 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 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | Where 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 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | "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 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 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | yeahhhhhhh, 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 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > 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 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | 2+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. |
| |
| ▲ | JimDabell 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > people will continue to use it how they see fit. And whenever they do so, this pointless argument will happen. Again, and again, and again. Because that’s not what the word means and your desired redefinition has been consistently and continuously rejected over and over again for decades. What do you gain from misusing this term? The only thing it does is make you look dishonest and start arguments. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | JoshTriplett 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | *according to the industry standard definition of Open Source This kind of thing is how people try to shift the Overton window. No. | |
| ▲ | udev4096 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | "I don't know anything about open source licenses hence I must spread my ignorance everywhere" | | |
| ▲ | fastball 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | Is there some Open Source™ council I am unaware of that bequeaths the open source moniker on certain licenses? | | |
|
|
