alt Hacker Newsimo this is a hill people need to stop dying on. Open source means "I can see the source" to most of the world. Wishing it meant "very permissively licensed" to everyone is a lost cause.
And honestly it wasn't a good hill to begin with: if what you are talking about is the license, call it "open license". The source code is out in the open, so it is "open source". This is why the purists have lost ground to practical usage.
Replies
And back in the day, people incorrectly called it "public domain". That was wrong too.
> if what you are talking about is the license, call it "open license".
If you want to build something proprietary, call it something else. "Open Source" is taken.
> Open source means "I can see the source" to most of the world
well we don't really want to open that can of worms though, do we?
I don't agree with ceding technical terms to the rest of the world. I'm increasingly told we need to stop calling cancer detection AI "AI" or "ML" because it is not the 'bad AI' and confuses people.
I guess I'm okay with being intransigent.
I don't think you get access to source in this case. The release is a binary blob.
> imo this is a hill people need to stop dying on.
As someone who was born and raised on FOSS, and still mostly employed to work on FOSS, I disagree.
Open source is what it is today because it's built by people with a spine who stand tall for their ideals even if it means less money, less industry recognition, lots of unglorious work and lots of other negatives.
It's not purist to believe that what built open source so far should remain open source, and not wanting to dilute that ecosystem with things that aren't open source, yet call themselves open source.