charlie-83
8 hours ago
I feel that this conflicts with the definition of open source software. It's important that we maintain that definition.
It's also worth having and discussing this idea of a 'spectrum' of openness but that needs to be seperate as to not conflict with the term "open source".
It already annoys me how many projects describe themselves as "open source" when they are actually just source available.
conartist6
7 hours ago
Because it uses the word "open?"
If you want to see the issues if how software serves humanity discussed, why immediately try to derail the larger more important discussion for a stupider one about maintaining a level of linguistic pedantism that lets us theatrically slam the door of welcome in people's faces and feel smug doing it.
charlie-83
3 minutes ago
The article brushes over the idea of a binary open source/proprietary in favour of a range of openness. Talking about the different degrees of openness in open source is a valuable thing to do but it's important to keep the clear line as well.
I want more nuanced discussions but I don't want to end up in a situation where people cannot tell whether software is open/proprietary because the language has become so blurred (its already confusing enough as it is).