5 ms·

It is wrong. I'm sorry to be blunt, but here we are. Just because pepsi tastes like coca cola, doesn't make it coca cola. Open source/free software places no

It is wrong. I'm sorry to be blunt, but here we are. Just because pepsi tastes like coca cola, doesn't make it coca cola. Open source/free software places no restrictions on use/modification/distribution, end of story. With the sole exception of copyleft, which disallows you to distribute & withhold source, i.e. stopping you from depriving others of the very freedom that you benefitted from. This places restrictions on use. Ergo it is not open source. Attempting to muddy the waters by using hand-wavey "you get most of your freedom!" type talk just muddies the waters and is precisely why the term got trademarked and why a definition exists. And it really is not hard to understand.

_benedict 4y ago
[flagged]
- jazzyjackson 4y ago
  > If people use it in this context, it means this thing. to them, it means that thing to them
  - _benedict 4y ago
    Yep, and if a bunch of people manage to communicate with others successfully using this term then…
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - _benedict 4y ago
    No, it means some people started using the word differently, no more no less. Cool your own use of language, I don’t think it’s at all appropriate or within HN guidelines.
    - bheadmaster 4y ago
      Blow it out your ass. People are using the word differently, and the community is telling them to stop using the words differently because it's misleading. What exactly are you arguing, that community should not do that? That, you know, the open source community should not tell people to stop using the term "open source" incorrectly? I'll cool my own language when you stop presenting your reductionist Philosophy 101 "it's just words bro" arguments without doing any further analysis. It's just words bro so why do you care that I said I had sex with your mother last night? Maybe I meant it as a compliment!
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - dang 4y ago
        Breaking the site guidelines like this is not ok here, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
    - bheadmaster 4y ago
      (Re-commenting because apparently you didn't like the way I use words, how ironic.) People are using the word differently, and the community is telling them to stop using the words differently because it's misleading. What exactly are you arguing, that community should not do that? That, you know, the open source community should not tell people to stop using the term "open source" incorrectly?
      - _benedict 4y ago
        I’m a member of the open source community, so “the” community isn’t telling them anything. But, no, I’ve quite clearly stated you can argue they shouldn’t use that definition. But you cannot credibly say that their usage is wrong if they are successfully communicating with others using that definition. The word will change usage, or it won’t, and neither of us will probably have any say over it.
- Winsaucerer 4y ago
  We use words to communicate effectively with other people. If different groups use words differently, that creates confusion and works against effective communication. We need to come to a general agreement about what words mean so that we can effectively communicate. If you decide to deliberately use a word differently from how it's been commonly used, rather than accepting the fact that you've been using it differently from everyone else and changing your behaviour, that makes effective communication harder.
  - _benedict 4y ago
    I think your assumption that everyone agreed on your definition in the first place is incorrect. Words are fuzzy, most people don’t look at dictionaries, let alone OSI or FSF definitions. A word changing usage often just indicates the meaning was never as precise as you thought, the distinction just hadn’t yet mattered.

_benedict 4y ago

[flagged]

jazzyjackson 4y ago
> If people use it in this context, it means this thing. to them, it means that thing to them
- _benedict 4y ago
  Yep, and if a bunch of people manage to communicate with others successfully using this term then…
bheadmaster 4y ago
[flagged]
- _benedict 4y ago
  No, it means some people started using the word differently, no more no less. Cool your own use of language, I don’t think it’s at all appropriate or within HN guidelines.
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    Blow it out your ass. People are using the word differently, and the community is telling them to stop using the words differently because it's misleading. What exactly are you arguing, that community should not do that? That, you know, the open source community should not tell people to stop using the term "open source" incorrectly? I'll cool my own language when you stop presenting your reductionist Philosophy 101 "it's just words bro" arguments without doing any further analysis. It's just words bro so why do you care that I said I had sex with your mother last night? Maybe I meant it as a compliment!
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - dang 4y ago
      Breaking the site guidelines like this is not ok here, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    (Re-commenting because apparently you didn't like the way I use words, how ironic.) People are using the word differently, and the community is telling them to stop using the words differently because it's misleading. What exactly are you arguing, that community should not do that? That, you know, the open source community should not tell people to stop using the term "open source" incorrectly?
    - _benedict 4y ago
      I’m a member of the open source community, so “the” community isn’t telling them anything. But, no, I’ve quite clearly stated you can argue they shouldn’t use that definition. But you cannot credibly say that their usage is wrong if they are successfully communicating with others using that definition. The word will change usage, or it won’t, and neither of us will probably have any say over it.
Winsaucerer 4y ago
We use words to communicate effectively with other people. If different groups use words differently, that creates confusion and works against effective communication. We need to come to a general agreement about what words mean so that we can effectively communicate. If you decide to deliberately use a word differently from how it's been commonly used, rather than accepting the fact that you've been using it differently from everyone else and changing your behaviour, that makes effective communication harder.
- _benedict 4y ago
  I think your assumption that everyone agreed on your definition in the first place is incorrect. Words are fuzzy, most people don’t look at dictionaries, let alone OSI or FSF definitions. A word changing usage often just indicates the meaning was never as precise as you thought, the distinction just hadn’t yet mattered.