|
|
|
|
|
by jjk166
1394 days ago
|
|
That's the descriptivist take, which is useful for studying informal communication, particularly in languages like english where there is no recognized authority that could prescribe how a language is used. Many languages, and especially most subsets of languages in technical use are prescribed; however. Enough people using literally when they mean figuratively will eventually make literally mean figuratively in casual conversation. But no amount of people saying squid when they mean octopus will make squid mean octopus within the marine biology community. |
|
A marine biologist might reasonably talk about an octopus' tentacles, and understand what other people mean when they talk about those tentacles, even though octopuses actually have "arms" in strict terminology.
Similar friction happens with the word "theory" in science or "proof" in mathematics.
But back to the topic: I think enough people use "open source" in a non-rigorous sense that it's worth leaving room for multiple definitions, versus trying to stamp the non-technical ones out. Marine biologists don't generally go around emphatically saying "they're arms, not tentacles!" (well, maybe some do, but mostly in a good-natured, aware-of-how-silly-it-is sense)