The inventor of GIF didn't begin with a document* clearly laying out what is and isn't to be called a "GIF."

I think it's right to push back whenever a huge tech corporation tries to build goodwill by falsely using terms like "open source."

*https://opensource.org/osd

▲

keeda 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

To be fair, the initiators of the "Open Source" movement also co-opted a term that previously had a much more flexible meaning (and had been around for more than a decade at that point.) Just writing a document attributing specific criteria to a term does not grant one authority over the use of that term.

Ironically, the roots of the Open Source movement are a direct reponse to the Free Software movement largely because it was considered too ideological and unfriendly to corporate interests (i.e. monetization.)

▲

JumpCrisscross 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> inventor of GIF didn't begin with a document clearly laying out what is and isn't to be called a "GIF”*

Neither did the inventors of AI. A third party published a document after corporations went with open weights = open source and a spoiler block in FOSS wanted all training data published.

> it's right to push back whenever a huge tech corporation tries to build goodwill by falsely using terms like "open source

I think it’s counterproductive. Most people only see a squabble, which makes any ensuing points from the open-source community seem silly. Those who care can continue using the more-precise language they choose to.

Put another way, there is a difference between using terms like cracker and fully spelling out cryptocurrency, and telling people who use hacker and crypto more loosely that they’re wrong. They aren’t wrong and that isn’t meaningful feedback. At the same time, the person using the precise language isn’t wrong either.

	▲	engeljohnb 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		There's a big difference between correcting some random commenter on an internet forum and correcting Microsoft. > think it’s counterproductive. Most people only see a squabble, which makes any ensuing points from the open-source community seem silly. Only to people that truly don't care whether something's open source. In which case, Microsoft using the term (correctly or incorrectly) won't change their perception. But the people who do care won't like to be mislead by Microsoft. There's a reason the term is right in the headline: people respond to it. I wish I had time to come up with a better example, but it's like if a AAA game company says they've released "native Linux build," but really they're just packaging the Windows build with Wine. 99% of people won't care, neither about the news nor the deception. But for that last 1%, any goodwill garnered with the headline would be gone, and the game company are the ones who look foolish, not the people calling them out.