| |||||||||||||
Heilmann: Don’t call it “open source” unless you mean itHeilmann: Don’t call it “open source” unless you mean itPosted Oct 22, 2012 17:09 UTC (Mon) by skvidal (subscriber, #3094)Parent article: Heilmann: Don’t call it “open source” unless you mean it
I believe this is a common fallacy.
It's open source if the code is open and under an open source license.
otherwise you're knee deep in 'no true scotsman' territory and it all gets more pearshaped.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
I understand what he's trying to say - and it should be "better open source projects help people and interact with users". Ones who do not are still open source, they just may not be the best open source projects to use.
Let's not create new definitions of existing words - that helps no one.
(Log in to post comments)
Heilmann: Don’t call it “open source” unless you mean it Posted Oct 22, 2012 21:23 UTC (Mon) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link]
Agreed.
The term "open source" is so routinely debased by the likes of the closed collaboration factions of the academic world, to name just one example, that the author would be better off directing his rant at those people instead, especially when those people, after expressing a vague fondness for the meanings of the separate words, put those words together and then parade the "open source" term around in order to mislead others into thinking that a mere pretence of openness - a concession to get people through the door - is what the term and the associated movement is all about.
In other words, the people who need telling off are not the people already doing the right thing, even if they could be running transparent projects with completely open governance.
|
|||||||||||||