"Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:" (omitted here) [0]
Crucially, one cannot make their code "for non-commerical use only" and have it still be open source. It must be available for any entity to do with it what they wish. One can of course restrict that, but it would no longer be open source. Source available, perhaps, but not open source.
Therefore, ironically, it is you who should not mangle language, not me.
Taking two words that have a meaning when put together and changing that meaning is mangling language. opensource.org claiming open source means something different from what the phrase literally means is more harmful than helpful. I agree, we need to be able to talk about code that is actually free for all to use. "Open source" is not the way to do that.
The phrase doesn't literally mean anything. Does the phrase "open door" mean the door is freely available? Does the phrase "open book" mean the book is freely available?
It's great that the phrase "open source" has been so intuitively understood but to claim it has an obvious literal meaning is just nonsense.
I could care less about the terminology people use, but I feel like all your examples would point to the intuitive meaning that "open source" implies.
An open door implies you can see what's behind the door, as opposed to a closed door. An open book implies you can see what's inside a book, as opposed to a closed book. Likewise, open source implies that you can see inside the source code, as opposed to closed source.
So I think the claim that it has no obvious literal meaning is a bit hyperbolic, but I get where your thinking, since most developers automatically associate "open source" with "free code".
Sorry, I cannot agree with you. OSI came up with the term "open source," hence I will use it as it is conventionally used, ie via their definition. If you want to literally interpret that, feel free to do so but know that others, such as those commenting on your thread, will not agree with you.
GPL (and friends) are about preserving the user's rights, in exchange for the developer's. The user is free to do what they want; They can make their own personal changes and builds, but the developer can't unless they follow the license.
If we are going down that road, what does "freely available" mean? To me that would suggest Public Domain only. If you get access to the code under a license, even something as liberal as MIT license, it wasn't "freely available" you had to agree to the license.
More to the point with a no commercial clause, it isn't freely available there are restrictions on what you can do with it.
Well, it was just as political... it's just the politics favor large companies who were convinced to use and let their employees contribute to projects under a license more akin to the public domain.
