Hacker News Reader

Comment by vasco | Hacker News Reader

Luckily I didn't mention either "closed source" or "proprietary software" in my comment. I mentioned that people colloquially use "open source" to refer to any code base that has source available to read.

Maybe there's some hidden point you're trying to make by associating these concepts but it'd be easier if you said it plainly.

Other than that I think you find that people in real life don't tend to be exact in their use of language all the time, and calling understandable imprecisions "wrong" tends to decrease the number of friends you get.

View on HN

People distort words to the point of meaningless unless the use of those words are defended. "Open Source" is a term that is actively being defended.

The history of the term is very clear. The term was coined by Christine Peterson in a group session in 1998 with Todd Anderson, Larry Augustin, Jon Hall, Sam Ockman, Michael Tiemann, and Eric S. Raymond. Months later the OSI was created by the same people in order to manage that definition. There is nothing unclear here. "Open source" is defined by OSI and it has been defined by them from the very start.

If communities let others distort words, those words loose their meaning. As a well known example, the word "woke" which has long been abandoned by the community that coined it.

"Open source" is an actively defended term by the organisation that originally defined it and the community around them.

Well if you're actively consciously defending it like that I can only wish you good luck. I guess if that's the goal comparing you to Stallman with GNU is more of a compliment than anything.

I’m not a fan of Stallman by any measure — his posture has often put people off some licenses and made GPL a bit problematic —, but even I think you’re engaging in unreasonable doublespeak.

The web is full of HTML, CSS, and JavaScript you can see the source for; and for which you can be sued by copying for your own commercial gain. By your definition, websites are open source; and yet, they are proprietary work. Something having its source open doesn’t make it Open Source.

This kind of doublespeak reeks of Reddit-grade corporate astroturfing.

The Open Source licenses are defined and protected in a certain way. You can’t just say “oh, me and my friends don’t think of it like that” and expect to be correct. I can’t build an app scamming people out of currency by abusing ISO 4217, and then excuse myself under “me and the people I know disagree with ISO”. OSI protects the licenses, the Vegan Society certifies what ‘vegan’ means, ISO does ISO things, and so on.

It’s okay to admit we’re wrong or ignorant, so I won’t pretend I’m an expert in this area. I also wouldn’t call anyone Stallman just because they are defending a term that deserves protection. “Source available” but not under the terms of an OSI license is NOT compliant with the term.

> Maybe there's some hidden point you're trying to make by associating these concepts but it'd be easier if you said it plainly.

I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious.

As "proprietary software" and "closed source" refer to the same it wouldn't be logical to use the opposite "open source" to refer to "proprietary software".

People don't have to be exact in their language, the point is for the other to understand what you mean.

I consider it the most polite and the most constructive to use the definition from the believers themselves.

Academic, as in relating to education and scholarship. Anarchy, as in without Archons. Archons, as in leaders of ancient Greek city-states. Let the communist define what it is, let the socialist, let the Jew, let the ufologist etc

There is the Open Source Initiative, the page starts with what they consider Open Source. https://opensource.org/osd/

Besides practicality the website also states: Never use or register any trademarks that are confusingly similar to, or a play on, the OSI or OSI Logo. An example of unacceptable is given: "Open Source Project"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com