[conartist6]

Because it uses the word "open?"

If you want to see the issues if how software serves humanity discussed, why immediately try to derail the larger more important discussion for a stupider one about maintaining a level of linguistic pedantism that lets us theatrically slam the door of welcome in people's faces and feel smug doing it.

[charlie-83]

The article brushes over the idea of a binary open source/proprietary in favour of a range of openness. Talking about the different degrees of openness in open source is a valuable thing to do but it's important to keep the clear line as well.

I want more nuanced discussions but I don't want to end up in a situation where people cannot tell whether software is open/proprietary because the language has become so blurred (its already confusing enough as it is).