|
|
|
|
|
|
by b4ux1t3
3216 days ago
|
|
|
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.