This isn't that uncommon:

* If a country doesn't have "closed borders" then many foreigners can visit if they follow certain rules around visas, purpose, and length of stay. If instead anyone can enter and live there with minimal restrictions we say it has "open borders".

* If a journal isn't "closed access" it is free to read. If you additionally have permissions to redistribute, reuse, etc then it's "open access".

* If an organization doesn't practice "closed meetings" then outsiders can attend meetings to observe. If it additionally provides advance notice, allows public attendance without permission, and records or publishes minutes, then it has “open meetings.”

* A club that doesn't have "closed membership" is open to admitting members. Anyone can join provided they meet relevant criteria (if any) then it's "open membership".

EDIT: expanded this into a post: https://www.jefftk.com/p/open-source-is-a-normal-term

* A set that isn't open isn't (necessarily) closed.

* A set that is open can also be closed.

Who says it isn't? "closed source" doesn't have a formal definition, but can be arbitrarily defined as the antonym of open source, and when people use the term that's usually what they mean.

And that has nothing to do with whether someone can be "blamed" for ignoring the actual meaning of a term with a formal definition.

Just sounds like you need to look up the definition of antonym to re-acquaint yourself with it, because your definition seems to have drifted from reality.

Random erroneous bad faith attack. I didn't give any sort of definition of antonym, I simply said that "closed source" can be arbitrarily defined as the antonym of open source--this is true even if I have no idea what "antonym means" (which of course is not the case).

Bad person will be henceforth ignored.

P.S. Oh, this is the person who claimed that "No, the original definition of open-source is source code that is visible (open) to the public" and when asked for a citation went on the attack.

Your claim that I'm bad faith is itself bad-faith.

> I didn't give any sort of definition of antonym

Oh I'm sorry, what is your definition of antonym? I thought I could understand it from your earlier assertion where you used your definition, but I guess I should have asked you what your definition is first. Pardon me for assuming you wanted your earlier statement to be understood as-is, and not require supplementary info. So yeah. I'm waiting. Or you can stop being a weasel liar that isn't even very good at it.

Also I'm sorry I "went on the attack" but hey, I thought you'd enjoy that since it's all you do here.

> Your claim that I'm bad faith is itself bad-faith.

His claim is itself of course more bad faith, and his entire comment is extreme bad faith -- "weasel liar"? "all you do here"? Irrelevant demands for a definition that everyone already knows? It's bad faith all the way down. Oh well, some people are irredeemably awful.

Did you find that dictionary yet?

> Did you find that dictionary yet?

Typical of the sort of comment that irredeemably awful people make. At no point did I say anything that can be rationally construed as being at odds with the dictionary definition of "antonym". This troll trash implied that I had without any basis, when all I said is that "closed source" can be arbitrarily defined as being the antonym of "open source" -- which is a tautology, independent of the actual meaning of "antonym" (but clearly consistent with it).