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

This debate has been had many many times before and you are simply wrong. Your effort is malicious.

Regardless of what other uses the word open has/had, "open source" was defined by OSI and they are authoritative over the term.




Malicious is the attempt to restrict open source to floss and start a shitstorm about open source but not floss software, because it prevents transparency for software where floss isn't an option.

If I define climate neutral as climate positive, climate neutral doesn't become climate positive nor do I get authority of the term climate neutral.


And yet that is absolutely the kind of bullshit you are pulling. Thank you for denouncing yourself.

Some terms were defined by a community and their use defended. Others were defined by a community, appropriated by others, distorted by others and subsequently abandoned by the original community. And yet others, were abandoned and then reclaimed by the original community.

"Open Source" is in the first category, defined by OSI and defended by the FLOSS community. It is actively being defended, and fish much bigger than you have failed to topple the community.


"And yet that is absolutely the kind of bullshit you are pulling. "

Nope it's what you and OSI try to do.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

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

Search: