[card_zero]

You might think so, I might think so, but apparently there's some gatekeeping about the term dating back to its invention in the 20th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-so...

"This article may be confusing or unclear to readers."

Also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source - Richard Stallman argues the "obvious meaning" of term "open source" is that the source code is public/accessible for inspection, without necessarily any other rights granted

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_terms_for_free_sof... - In a 1998 strategy session in California, "open-source software" was selected by Todd Anderson, Larry Augustin, Jon Hall, Sam Ockman, Christine Peterson, and Eric S. Raymond. Richard Stallman had not been invited.

I'm getting downvoted now for dissenting. :D

[prophesi]

I would also agree that the common sense definition of open source should be public/accessible code. But FOSS is a well-established movement and anyone involved with software development should be well-acquainted with Free vs Open.

[card_zero]

So you mean the actual definition should not be the common sense one? That's probably pragmatic, yes.

[Brian_K_White]

Almost every word has some special meaning depending on the context it's used in. This is not controvercial. This is a silly argument to try to make a thing out of.

[card_zero]

Jargon terms are necessary for specialists, it's true. Berry, for instance, technically includes tomatoes and cucumbers, but not strawberries or raspberries. So if somebody says "I just bought some berries" you should inspect their purchases and correct them accordingly, because maintaining correctness is important.

[teddyh]

You’re being downvoted for:

1. Calling proper nomenclature “gatekeeping”.

2. Selectively quoting people to seem like they disagree, where in fact no such disagreement exists.

[card_zero]

I wasn't sure about (2), I must admit, only that the history of the term is complicated. Stallman seems less attached to it than the others.

[teddyh]

As far as I understand, Stallman is not supportive of promoting or using the term, but he does not disagree with the OSI’s definition.

But I quite often see trolls trying to claim that he does, since if the term is disputed, it opens up for what the trolls really want to do, which is always to illegitimately market their proprietary software (with abominable license terms) as “open source”.