On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 9:03 PM, Bas Wijnen wrote: > On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 02:09:24AM +0100, Philippe Cerfon wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 1:11 AM, Josh Triplett wrote: >> > "open" does not mean "has source available"; "Open Source" is defined >> > here: http://opensource.org/osd . (That link may look rather familiar, >> > as the OSI based their definition on the DFSG.) >> >> Aside from any re-definitions/interpretations made by OSI respectively >> the community, "open source" by the words alone means open source, >> which doesn't imply any freeness, or whether it's copyleft or not. >> See for example >> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html for >> more thoughts on free vs. open. > > Wait, you are citing this to advocate using "open" to mean "non-free, but with > source"? Are you intentionally trying to cause maximum confusion? > >> Also just because the OpenSource community claims "open source" to >> have the meaning which we all commonly assume, doesn't mean that this >> belongs to us. > > The open source and free software communities have almost 100% overlap. I'm > pretty sure there is very broad consensus that we don't want to piss off > everyone who says "open source", especially if there's no reason for it.
FYI: there are people out there who are still angry at ESR/OSI for hijacking the term "open source" to mean essentially the same thing as "Free Software" instead of what they used it for; anything with publicly released source code. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
