No, when hear the term open source the first thing that come in mind is that the source is readable, thats it nothing else is implied. That being said, oher entities/organization might have their own definition. I'm sure there are many people who use the term open source like mine.
Lots of people get technical language wrong much the time. This is fine. Normally one does not correct heavily because one is polite. When one hears someone starting to spread the mistake one feels a duty to correct to prevent further misinformation. This is tedious but still fine.
What is not fine is when the person using the technical language wrong starts explaining that their ignorance is better than other peoples' knowledge.
No it's not ignorance its willful ignorance. There is the actual definition. And then there is your personal definition.
This is like saying that personally you use the definition of kilogram to be 3.5 measures of flour using one of your cups. You would struggle when using other people's recipes and other people would struggle when using yours....
Software licensing is complex enough already. Why not keep it all simpler and use words as they are defined and understood by the lawyers who are the ones who actually have to deal with this side of things? Then us programmers can just write the software.
Who decide that the OSI definition is the actual definition ?
Unlike your kilogram example, there are actually plenty of people that use/prefer the simpler definition, sure there will some struggle but that is expected.
That's why they should not use such simple and common words to define complex software licensing.
You're not alone. I'm of the mind that it doesn't matter what the license, state of the source, or whatever, I'm here to get things done, not quibble over trivialities and semantics. When I can see the source for something, I call it open source. If the OSI has a problem with that, I invite them to explain to me how my definition affects their goals in any way, shape, or form.
I like the OSI. I use a lot of stuff that they endorse. My 3D printer is OSI certified (or whatever the proper terminology is). But I use my printer to solve problems, and it being open or closed source doesn't really matter, so long as it helps me solve problems.
I like the FSF. I use a lot of stuff that they endorse. One of the operating systems I use is FSF certified (or whatever the proper terminology is). But I use this operating system to solve problems, and it being open or closed source doesn't really matter, as long as it helps me solve problems.
I like Microsoft. I use a lot of stuff that they make. One of the operating systems I use. . .you get the idea.
I recommend just using the definitions of things correctly then :) much easier that trying to persuade other people that the definition does not exist.
When cooking I use the kilogram as defined by the SI system - I don't use some other random mass that I call a kilogram.
Similarly with software legalities. I also just use the standard terminology so other people e.g. my company's legal department gets the correct inference of what I am talking about. If you use it to mean something else you will confuse them.
Correct or not is relative, its a matter of which definition you subscribe to.
Using the term Open source as source is available is not just random. Apparently many people including developer use it that way. I think its fault of OSI to use such common words to define something so specific.
I don't understand. Once someone knows that they are using these words wrong. Why would they not only persist but insist that everyone else is wrong? Is this just due to embarrassment or something else?