[Sir_Cmpwn]

No, it hasn't. This is a lie which serves the interests of those who would harm open source. This language is important. You can't take the argument of "every word means what I want it to". The burden is on you to be understood, and by misusing terminology like "open source" you are either ignorant or deceitful. I wouldn't expand the definition of decongestant to include adderall because the former sells better and I'm a pharmacy that needs to get rid of my stock.

You might disagree with the principles of the definition, or think that the definition isn't useful. But that doesn't make it any less of the definition. If you want to do something different, you need to call it something else or you are lying to people.

[Nacraile]

> You might disagree with the principles of the definition, or think that the definition isn't useful. But that doesn't make it any less of the definition. If you want to do something different, you need to call it something else or you are lying to people.

This argument can be applied to your definition just as well as it can to my definition. Which underlines the pointlessness of arguing over the definition of "open source", and therefore the pointlessness of telling somebody that their thing is "not open source".

[mkesper]

If you follow your logic everything becomes void.

[Nacraile]

Not so. I'm just saying that it's valid to disagree on the definition of a thing, and that when that happens you need to have debate about the real underlying disagreement, rather than making a pointless and foolish declaration of your correctness by your definition.

Although I'm not sure why I bothered typing that, given the current readings I'm getting on my troll detector.