Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

There's nothing dishonest about having a different definition of open source then the FSF or OSI.



I disagree.

You can make that statement in theory, for a general term without any biasing factors.

For a term like "open source", that has a generally strong positive connotation, using it to self-define when your own definition of it liberally includes yourself, while the popular definition does not, strongly implies your alternate definition is designed for self-benefit. This is definitely dishonest.


"Open source" has been in use in the early 90s, as a simple usenet search will show.


I mean you're right, but I don't see what this point has to do with my comment...


Thus my "EDIT3" at the end of the post you replied to.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: