Re:CodeCov is now Open Source
by cxr on Friday August 04, 2023 @07:50AM
(#36998624)
> So why did the OSI write[... ¶] While there is agreement on the broad term "open source" as meaning approximately what is captured in the Open Source Definition the term has, ironically, now become so popular that it has lost some of its precision.
That passage says two things:
1. "open source" means what OSI says it means
2. there are people like OP who exist
OP does exist. That's a self-evident and indisputable fact. Were you expecting me to argue otherwise?
Acknowledging that it's true, however, is completely different from saying that the definition they're using is widely agreed upon or that there is a difference between "Open Source" and "open source" that is wide accepted. (The first sentence in that passage actually says the opposite...)
That passage says two things:
1. "open source" means what OSI says it means
2. there are people like OP who exist
OP does exist. That's a self-evident and indisputable fact. Were you expecting me to argue otherwise?
Acknowledging that it's true, however, is completely different from saying that the definition they're using is widely agreed upon or that there is a difference between "Open Source" and "open source" that is wide accepted. (The first sentence in that passage actually says the opposite...)