> 'Open source' is a simple descriptive phrase - it's not something the OSI own, or coined, or have any right to lecture people on.
You're sort of pulling back here—defending it in a different context than the way it was used in the place you first wrote it.
Do you want to take this private? I'll email you. I've been in enough HN flamewars over the last 24 hours, and these types of threads where a few people dominate aren't good and might as well be private, anyway.
* 'open source' was an existing industry term before 1998, with a broadly similar meaning - not exactly the same and that's kind of the point - why pick an existing term and try to give it a new meaning and then claim you invented it?
* 'open source' is a plainly descriptive term, so much so that the even the USPTO told them this and that them trying to trademark it was a nonsense - it's like they tried to claim they invented 'sliced bread' and then wanted to trademark it - it's just an adjective and a noun
With both of these things, I think it's really silly of them to try to tell people that things aren't open source because they don't meet their own pet definition (and they do that - they have come into HN threads and told people off).
You can email me if you want! All my details are in my profile. But it's not my job to convince anyone of anything. I just know why I wouldn't let the OSI lecture me, and I'd recommend other people check the history as well.
You're sort of pulling back here—defending it in a different context than the way it was used in the place you first wrote it.
Do you want to take this private? I'll email you. I've been in enough HN flamewars over the last 24 hours, and these types of threads where a few people dominate aren't good and might as well be private, anyway.