| |||||||||||||
Heilmann: Don’t call it “open source” unless you mean itHeilmann: Don’t call it “open source” unless you mean itPosted Oct 22, 2012 17:12 UTC (Mon) by cantsin (guest, #4420)Parent article: Heilmann: Don’t call it “open source” unless you mean it Heilmann's argument may sound intuitively right, but formally it is wrong. None of his criteria are part of the Open Source Definition . You may release software and call it Open Source that matches this definition even if all you do is provide the code as-is, with no whatsoever feedback or community building.
(Log in to post comments)
Heilmann: Don’t call it “open source” unless you mean it Posted Oct 22, 2012 17:40 UTC (Mon) by b7j0c (subscriber, #27559) [Link]
thank you. i wish more people would actually READ licenses.
Heilmann: Don’t call it “open source” unless you mean it Posted Oct 22, 2012 18:33 UTC (Mon) by nhippi (subscriber, #34640) [Link]
Agreed. The author is trying to shift the meaning of Open Source. Please invent a new term instead of trying to hijack "Open Source". Howabout "Open Community" or "Open Development" ?
Heilmann: Don’t call it “open source” unless you mean it Posted Oct 23, 2012 9:36 UTC (Tue) by njwhite (subscriber, #51848) [Link]
Well, I'm not sure I agree entirely. The term "Open Source" has generally been used to refer to the power of different development methodologies and communities, even if the official definition focuses on the legal/licensing aspects.
Calling it 'hijacking' the term is certainly too strong; words are flexible and used in different ways to mean different things all the time, even if they have a fixed formal definition.
Heilmann: Don’t call it “open source” unless you mean it Posted Oct 26, 2012 12:45 UTC (Fri) by juliank (subscriber, #45896) [Link]
That's what I'd use free software for. Open Source really is just legal stuff, and has nothing to do with communities.
|
|||||||||||||