Re:Man Tries to Live an Open Source Life for a Year
by Gormo on Saturday August 11, 2012 @12:55PM
(#4370451)
Why is the term "open source" not applicable to any context in which the design of a product is distinct from its final form, and in which that design is conventionally covered by copyrights or patents?
If an architect released a set of standard building plans under an open license, would that not be legitimately "open source"?
Tangentially related, but despite the article's definition of open source: "It's definitely not just software", it's a peeve of mine nonetheless to hear the term "open source" applied in non-software/programming contexts. Especially with some of the examples you've pointed out:
> He also claims he wants to be open source in "how I get around." What would it mean for walking to be open source or closed source? Is it "open source" to ride a bus?
Not sure if I'm alone on this.