[ezekg]

> Words mean what people use them as. I don't care what OSI says, OSS and SAS are the same thing.

I completely agree. I’ve avoided using the term “open source” where possible for my SAS, instead opting for word-play like “open, source-available”, but it was frustrating that I felt I even needed to do that to avoid backlash from the zealots. And I’ve loosened my reigns there a bit as well as time has gone by. I think it’s silly. I want to use “open source” because that’s what it is.

As an example, there’s no reason Elastic should have had to cave to OSI and start using “free & open” everywhere in place of “open source.” The reality is SAS licenses like ELv2 may not be “Open Source (tm)” but they sure as hell are “open source” to most people in our industry.

FOSS !== OSS.

[kiba]

It's very confusing when someone said it's open source when it isn't actually open source.

I quite literally grew up with the specific definition. If people decided to redefine open source software, then I'll need a new specific definition, because it's no longer useful or fit for the purpose.

[rerdavies]

Not sure that the definition was fit for purpose in the first place. A perfectly reasonable understanding of Open Source is that the source is open (whether conditions are attached or not).

And if you then object to conditions being attached to how you use it, perhaps you should also consider the onerous conditions imposed by the GPL license.

[kiba]

It wasn't reasonable to me that open source software just means only source code is available. If people insists that the way it should be used, then I would abandon the term for something else.

[supriyo-biswas]

Open source is a technical, well defined term. If your software is ultimately not open for certain fields of endeavor, I’m willing to accept that, but labeling as if it is, and then coming up with derogatory terms such as “zealot” for people pointing out this difference is dishonest.

[bruce511]

I use "shipped as source". My code is not "open" and I'm very careful never to label it as such in verbal or written communications.

I think the word "open" belongs to OSS, not proprietary code, and I would politely suggest and recommend, you never use that word to describe your offering. (Ditto "free" :)

[fastball]

Definitions are not static. If the majority of people who say "open source" mean "I can view the source, it is out in the open" vs the OSI definition, then the definition of the word is the former.

Just like how the word "hacker" meant one (generally positive) thing, then it meant computer criminal, and now it has come back to be somewhere in the middle.

Of course it is your right to fight for whichever definition you prefer, but the idea that anyone has a monopoly on the definition and can claim a term "doesn't mean that" is a bit silly.