|
|
|
|
|
|
by ewan-mclean
1052 days ago
|
|
|
So why did the OSI write this?: > While there is agreement on the broad term "open source" as meaning approximately what is captured in the Open Source Definition the term has, ironically, now become so popular that it has lost some of its precision. https://web.archive.org/web/20060411080543/http://www.openso... Why did the OSI apply for a trademark on the term Open-Source? Why does the OSI continue pay the trademark registration fee to renew the unambiguous term "OSI Approved License" and why don't you adopt that term? Perhaps because both you and the OSI know that when you focus on the term "OSI Approved Licenses", it's just another word for "free software", and most people that are interested in "open-source" are interested because it's the opposite of "closed-source", not interested because they want to associate with the FSFs anti-developer property ideology. |
|
|
That passage says two things:
1. "open source" means what OSI says it means
2. there are people like OP who exist
OP does exist. That's a self-evident and indisputable fact. Were you expecting me to argue otherwise?
Acknowledging that it's true, however, is completely different from saying that the definition they're using is widely agreed upon or that there is a difference between "Open Source" and "open source" that is wide accepted. (The first sentence in that passage actually says the opposite...)