It is open source, the source is right there on the repo for anyone to read.
It can be open source without being free software, it can be open source without having any license. If the owner has opened their code to the world to read, it's open source.
I was around before that wiki page was written and know exactly what open source means. I'm not going to play the double speak game on words. open source means you can read the code. period. it doesn't matter if it's free, or if it has a commercial nature or not.
free software is software you don't have to pay money to use, it doesn't matter if you have access to the code or not.
source available means the source is available on request and with restrictions to keep it private. doesn't matter if the software is free or not.
> [common; also adj. open-source] Term coined in March 1998 following the Mozilla release to describe software distributed in source under licenses guaranteeing anybody rights to freely use, modify, and redistribute, the code. The intent was to be able to sell the hackers' ways of doing software to industry and the mainstream by avoiding the negative connotations (to suits) of the term “free software”.
There is no platonic definition for words that make it wrong to use them in a different way.
Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.
If someone uses a term like "open source" in a way that is clearly different from how you understand the word, that doesn't make them wrong. All it does it highlight a different perspective.
You can attempt to tell them that they are wrong to use the term that way. It's changing the topic and distracts from the point, so if that's your goal, go for it. Most people don't react well to it. You can think that they should be okay with it, but people don't tend to react well to that either.
I don't think it's wrong. I think it's confusing and creates unnecessary friction. Especially if the term is well-established in the profession or the community.
Does it really? I find I have a pretty common process, where I will hear something and it doesn't make sense to me, and then I pause for a moment to think, and I realize the speaker is using some word or phrase differently than I was expecting. I then understand what was trying to be said and continue the conversation.
This is a daily thing in my experience, often internalized to the point I don't notice until reflecting later. It doesn't feel like friction to me. This is the unavoidable nature of trying to connect with someone using language.
So I guess you are saying that you're aware that "open source" means a specific thing to many people in this field, but are going to use it in a confusing (to many) way rather than using the unloaded "source available"? You do you, but don't expect everyone to agree to switch from this fairly common usage. Makes it look like you're just searching for an argument.
I'm glad to see you're not bothered by these weird hn folk, I've said this before but people like to think hn is better than reddit when in reality we have our own brand of toxic here
