Hacker News Reader

Comment by kragen | Hacker News Reader

Where are these people coming from? We were perfectly clear when we invented the term "open source" that we meant "free software", to the point of adapting the Debian Free Software Guidelines into the explicit and detailed Open Source Definition, and we've been using the term consistently for over 20 years. Where is the roach nest that keeps sending forth these would-be free-riders on the goodwill attached to the term "open source", who keep trying to falsely pass off their proprietary crud as "open source", and how can we exterminate them?

(Not, of course, BootOS; it never claims to be open-source.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software

View on HN

> Where are these people coming from? We were perfectly clear when we invented the term "open source" that we meant "free software", to the point of adapting the Debian Free Software Guidelines into the explicit and detailed Open Source Definition, and we've been using the term consistently for over 20 years.

Well, language is open, and confusing terminology will cause misunderstandings. Besides, there is not one definition of open source, and the most common definition has 10 criteria. You're not exactly doing anyone a service by calling someone who is not aware of all this background and understandably uses a rational interpretation of "open source" a roach. In fact, you come across as a douchebag.

(Now, I agree that intentionally abusing the term is reprehensible, but that does not seem to be the case here)

In fact, you come across as a douchebag.

Whatever problems you may have with my ethnicity hardly seem relevant here! We're talking about con men falsely claiming that their software is open-source in order to free-ride on the goodwill the open-source community has earned through decades of hard work and persistence against impossible odds in order to guarantee basic human rights to everyone in an increasingly computer-mediated world. If it takes douchebags to show the falsity of their false claims, then let's have more douchebags! (But actually I think people of any ethnicity are equally capable of standing up for what is right; it doesn't have to be a douchebag like me.)

I don't know why you think the error was unintentional in this case. The poster in question wrote, "You mean open source yes, free software no." They are implying that they not only have knowledge of the nuances of the definitions in question, but are so certain of it that they correct other people for misusing the terms — they aren't just guessing. Presumably such a person will at least have read the introductory paragraph on the Wikipedia page for "Open-source software"!

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying the mistake is understandable, and that you can correct someone in a polite way. Probably everyone has used terminology the wrong way, and I don't think overreacting helps your case in any way.

(I don't understand your remarks about ethnicity. As far as I know 'douchebag' is not a racial slur.)

I assume it's mostly due to misunderstanding. It's been a long time since the open source definition was adopted and we're seeing more and more people now who don't know the history.

People who have been using a term their whole lives might not have any idea where it came from, or that it even has an official definition.

But where does the misunderstanding come from? Where are they getting the fraudster definition from? Do they see threads like this and think “I should be like that guy who has all those people yelling at him that he's wrong,” or is there some reservoir of memetic infection out there where this kind of thing goes unchallenged?

It's right there in the words of the term - it's not an unreasonable guess to think that 'open source' just means that the source code is 'open' in the sense of 'available', especially since proprietary software doesn't normally provide source code.

Compound this by the fact that many people are jumping into this field where English is not their first (or even second) language.

When you open a container, you can see inside of it.

When you open source, you can see the source.

I'm sure some of the misunderstanding comes from the phrase itself, which has a sensible meaning even in a universe where OSI didn't trademark it.

Update: BootOS is open source now!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com