[xcambar]

nowadays, it is expected that open source is also a synonym for “community-driven”, which is a very bold assumption.

I don’t know how we got to this point but it’s interesting to notice that the terminology drifted.

[picardo]

By that definition, any software project that is driven by a BDFL wouldn't be open source, including Linux.

The terminology hasn't drifted that much. I think there is a small and vocal group of people who are trying to take back "open source" by reframing what it means, so as to exclude corporate projects. It doesn't make sense to me.

[ksec]

>any software project that is driven by a BDFL wouldn't be open source, including Linux.

There are certainly a push in that direction. And that you need a group of people, core or council to be considered as Open Source. And Linux has that.

>The terminology hasn't drifted that much.

It depends how you measure it, but Twitter and HN are at least two places where lots of developers are suggesting Open Sources equals to Community driven. And yes, there are also some movement towards MIT, BSD or Apache 2.0 as being not considered as Open Source because they do not contribute back changes. Although that hasn't gotten any traction. ( yet )

[xcambar]

I was probably too implicit but when I wrote "which is a very bold assumption ", I also meant that I am in disagreement with the statement.

For me, open source and community-driven are not similar and I don't understand why people seem to expect it.