> If people use it in this context, it means this thing.

to them, it means that thing to them

Yep, and if a bunch of people manage to communicate with others successfully using this term then…

Oh blow it out your ass.

The only reason a project would even use the label Open Source is to reap the benefits that they get when people associate it with an ideology. Using such a term for virtue points, then turning around and saying "well, you know what, I have my own definition of Open Source" is just blatant grifting.

Your whole argument boils down to "we can and we will hijack the words for our own benefit", but if you succeed, you'll make Open Source less trustworthy in the public opinion, therefore shooting yourself in the foot.

No, it means some people started using the word differently, no more no less.

Cool your own use of language, I don’t think it’s at all appropriate or within HN guidelines.

Blow it out your ass.

People are using the word differently, and the community is telling them to stop using the words differently because it's misleading. What exactly are you arguing, that community should not do that? That, you know, the open source community should not tell people to stop using the term "open source" incorrectly?

I'll cool my own language when you stop presenting your reductionist Philosophy 101 "it's just words bro" arguments without doing any further analysis. It's just words bro so why do you care that I said I had sex with your mother last night? Maybe I meant it as a compliment!

Breaking the site guidelines like this is not ok here, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

(Re-commenting because apparently you didn't like the way I use words, how ironic.)

People are using the word differently, and the community is telling them to stop using the words differently because it's misleading. What exactly are you arguing, that community should not do that? That, you know, the open source community should not tell people to stop using the term "open source" incorrectly?

I’m a member of the open source community, so “the” community isn’t telling them anything.

But, no, I’ve quite clearly stated you can argue they shouldn’t use that definition. But you cannot credibly say that their usage is wrong if they are successfully communicating with others using that definition.

The word will change usage, or it won’t, and neither of us will probably have any say over it.

They are not successfully communicating with others, as the majority of people expect Open Source software to grant you some rights that the software in question doesn't, which is why it's misleading, or in other words, wrong.

You can use your words in whatever way you want with whatever people you want, but can't deliberately ignore the widely-adopted definitions because "language changes" and claim everyone else is wrong and your microcosmos is right. Wake me up when language actually changes (i.e. when the majority adopts the new definition) and then we'll talk.

That’s an empirical claim, and I’m not sure what you’re basing it on?

There’s literal dictionaries that disagree with you, so plenty of credibility to the alternative meanings.

There's an official OSI definition [1] that agrees with me, so your "dictionaries" should fix their wrong definitions.

[1] https://opensource.org/osd

Official? In what sense?

In the sense of being the widely accepted authority on the matter.

That’s another assumption. It might be widely accepted within your circle, but most people using the word I would bet don’t even know it exists. So for them it isn’t an authority. A dictionary might be.

I certainly do not recognise any charity’s right to define a word, so it is not official to me - or, apparently, to the OED or Wikipedia, and I would bet most other dictionaries and people.

I certainly don't care about your opinion, so I don't give a shit what you recognize as authority.

Most people in the open source community recognize OSI definition as authoritative. "Muh assumption" - if you want data, look at the comment section in this article, most people disagree with you. You may have your microcosms of people who don't know/don't care about history of open source/free software, but your ignorance doesn't grant you any authority over language, either.

Use the language any way you want, but stop throwing tantrums when people rightfully tell you that you're using it wrong.

But that's the whole point. You can't just stand up and say 'i don't agree with your use of the word, therefore I'm going to change it'. That's the most ridiculous idea ever. Hey guys guess what, I now declare that the word 'murder' no longer means killing someone.

But nobody’s doing that? I think a bunch of people basically never agreed with you on the definition, it just never mattered much as the distinction didn’t matter yet. Most people don’t think much about how they use words, they just use them.

To use your example, it might be that murder evolved from meaning “a crime has been committed” to meaning a specific crime. Which, um, is exactly what happened.

Unfortunately people need to think about how they use words. Definitions exist for a reason, otherwise meaning is lost and confusion reigns. The legal definition of murder didn't haphazardly evolve, it was deliberately enshrined in statute and common law (to include intent, unlawfulness etc).

The definition of open source is the same. It's not a random thing, it has specific elements which make up the definition. You may not like or agree with those elements, but then it's probably better that you go off and a) define something else for your purposes b) ignore the definition and be subject to legal redress if you contravene the definition.

One useful place to start with the definition (and there are, of course, many specific types of licenses, some of which are more restrictive than others) is https://opensource.org/osd

Firstly, the Oxford English Dictionary uses a different definition, as does Wikipedia. It’s far from clear why we would prefer OSD, and by these other definitions you’re the one using the word incorrectly.

Secondly, good luck convincing everyone they “need to think about how they use words”

Thirdly, “legal redress”!?

>> they “need to think about how they use words” Yeah I know, but we've got to try, right? Otherwise it's anarchy out there. :)

>> 'legal redress'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license_litigation

I don’t see anything there on the use of the term open source, just lots of open source related disputes?

We use words to communicate effectively with other people. If different groups use words differently, that creates confusion and works against effective communication. We need to come to a general agreement about what words mean so that we can effectively communicate. If you decide to deliberately use a word differently from how it's been commonly used, rather than accepting the fact that you've been using it differently from everyone else and changing your behaviour, that makes effective communication harder.

I think your assumption that everyone agreed on your definition in the first place is incorrect.

Words are fuzzy, most people don’t look at dictionaries, let alone OSI or FSF definitions. A word changing usage often just indicates the meaning was never as precise as you thought, the distinction just hadn’t yet mattered.