Taking two words that have a meaning when put together and changing that meaning is mangling language. opensource.org claiming open source means something different from what the phrase literally means is more harmful than helpful. I agree, we need to be able to talk about code that is actually free for all to use. "Open source" is not the way to do that.

The phrase doesn't literally mean anything. Does the phrase "open door" mean the door is freely available? Does the phrase "open book" mean the book is freely available?

It's great that the phrase "open source" has been so intuitively understood but to claim it has an obvious literal meaning is just nonsense.

I could care less about the terminology people use, but I feel like all your examples would point to the intuitive meaning that "open source" implies.

An open door implies you can see what's behind the door, as opposed to a closed door. An open book implies you can see what's inside a book, as opposed to a closed book. Likewise, open source implies that you can see inside the source code, as opposed to closed source.

So I think the claim that it has no obvious literal meaning is a bit hyperbolic, but I get where your thinking, since most developers automatically associate "open source" with "free code".

Except the phrase "open door" doesn't mean that. It's a door you can walk through, not see through.

Perhaps Glass Source would be a more accurate phrase for code you can see but not touch.

>Taking two words that have a meaning when put together and changing that meaning is mangling language.

No that is how the English language works. Car gas and gas are two different things.

Source available is akin to putting a paper behind a piece of glass, how is that open? You can't touch it, can't modify it.

Sorry, I cannot agree with you. OSI came up with the term "open source," hence I will use it as it is conventionally used, ie via their definition. If you want to literally interpret that, feel free to do so but know that others, such as those commenting on your thread, will not agree with you.

> It must be available for any entity to do with it what they wish.

By that definition GPL and attribution required aren’t open source.

GPL (and friends) are about preserving the user's rights, in exchange for the developer's. The user is free to do what they want; They can make their own personal changes and builds, but the developer can't unless they follow the license.