[byyll]

Again with the pointless discussion about what the "widely regarded definition of open source" is. The source is there. That's it.

[p_ing]

IMO the distinction is important; it tells me, broadly, what I can and cannot do with the source code.

Heck, the .NET Framework source has been available for eons (referencesource.microsoft.com), but you can't go compile it and build your own .NET Framework distro (Mono is a different story).

[Imustaskforhelp]

there was some guy on hackernews whose post I had read who had actually compiled .net entirely from source.

Like the issue I think becomes that .net itself was written in .net and so you needed the earlier proprietary versions right?

But Gnu also had a .net compiler and he had actually used it on guix (basically like nix) to really create sort of reproducible .net , I am sure that some reader of this comment will attach the post on which I am talking

[ameliaquining]

I believe this was https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog/2024/adding-a-fully-bootstrappe.... It was submitted to HN but only got a few comments.

[neilv]

The term "open source" was coined for a specific meaning, and codified.

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

Destroying the meaning of words is an activity for Orwellian villains.

[evanelias]

Although OSI claims that they coined the term, there's irrefutable proof that the term was already in-use well before that. Originally, "open source" just meant "source available": https://dieter.plaetinck.be/posts/open-source-undefined-part...

[byyll]

I coined it today to mean something else. There is no reason to take someone's meaning of a word for gospel.

[insane_dreamer]

> That's it.

No, that's not it. What you can do with the source code is just as important as the source code being available.

[byyll]

Then call it a new term. Don't change the definition of existing words. An open door isn't an invitation to change it, or to use it for free. It's just an open door and you can look inside.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

> The source is there. That's it.

No, that's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software

[preisschild]

"open source" has been defined by the OSI since decades and this does not fit that definition.

[byyll]

I don't really mind whether it fits someone else's definition really.