Re:Open source chess developers warn about a commercial engi...
by Brian_K_White on Friday February 19, 2021 @02:11PM
(#26196747)
"check the licenses of the next 10-20 repos (or more, if you have time or motivation), which are labeled "open source" and you will very quickly see what many people think open source license to mean."
That proves no such thing.
You might as well say "check the programming language used on the next 10 or 20 repositories and you will very quickly see what many people think open source programming language to mean."
I only ever licence my own stuff as gpl or the closest cc analog for projects with a physical component, and in almost all conversations, with people in and out of any IT related field or hobby, I call it all open source.
The special meanings for "open source" and "free" are definitions a very few people have come up with as a way to give a label to a distinction which exists so that they can deal with that distinction, but no one I know ever uses those terms in that way in any ordinary conversation or even writings. Even professional writers writing news articls, most frequently use the term open source to apply to anything that isn't closed source. Even they might only say "free" to mean without monetary cost.
The special definitions are almost like a document-local definition. They aren't even jargon. Meaning, you can't even say that everyone in a given field means those definitions when they say those words. The set for which that assumption would be true or at least plausible is only everyone in one or two organizations.
That proves no such thing.
You might as well say "check the programming language used on the next 10 or 20 repositories and you will very quickly see what many people think open source programming language to mean."
I only ever licence my own stuff as gpl or the closest cc analog for projects with a physical component, and in almost all conversations, with people in and out of any IT related field or hobby, I call it all open source.
The special meanings for "open source" and "free" are definitions a very few people have come up with as a way to give a label to a distinction which exists so that they can deal with that distinction, but no one I know ever uses those terms in that way in any ordinary conversation or even writings. Even professional writers writing news articls, most frequently use the term open source to apply to anything that isn't closed source. Even they might only say "free" to mean without monetary cost.
The special definitions are almost like a document-local definition. They aren't even jargon. Meaning, you can't even say that everyone in a given field means those definitions when they say those words. The set for which that assumption would be true or at least plausible is only everyone in one or two organizations.