Nope, I'm pretty sure that its meaning remained the same since the term "open source" was founded. Feel free to prove my otherwise.
> Especially recently by the GitLab guys and their rhetoric.
Mind elaborating what rhetoric you're thinking of?
> GitHub is another fine example of a company who preaches open source, but doesn't have an open source product.
GitHub has a shit ton of open source products (https://github.com/github), out of which most popular example is probably Atom. The fact that their core product is not open source doesn't mean that they don't have an open source product at all. Bad phrasing perhaps?
The issue I have with many open source projects is that they use open source as a marketing and free labour tool. The contributors to the open components get essentially nothing, they get to make a slightly wonky product less buggy and more useful, and then the company benefits on this by selling the closed component that the open one depends on ( depends on perhaps not technically but at least from a practical sense).
> The term "open source" has become a buzzword.
Nope, I'm pretty sure that its meaning remained the same since the term "open source" was founded. Feel free to prove my otherwise.
> Especially recently by the GitLab guys and their rhetoric.
Mind elaborating what rhetoric you're thinking of?
> GitHub is another fine example of a company who preaches open source, but doesn't have an open source product.
GitHub has a shit ton of open source products (https://github.com/github), out of which most popular example is probably Atom. The fact that their core product is not open source doesn't mean that they don't have an open source product at all. Bad phrasing perhaps?