> 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.
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.
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).
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.