undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdizhn3y ago0 comments

Who said anything about defining a standard term?

It's about one organization appropriating years of work like they've been the ones doing it all along and corporations being all too happy to accept it as such because it is good for business.

0 comments

3 comments · 2 top-level

pessimizer3y ago· 1 in thread

Free Software's only relationship to Open Source is that you can relicense OSS with the GPL just by kissing it (as long as you comply with any minor strangeness in the OSS license.)

Open Source tried to steal the energy of Free Software and steer it in a business friendly direction, but they didn't steal the term "Open Source" any more than Free Software stole the term "Free" from "free beer." These are just terms of art, certifications by two very established and influential certification bodies, and wittering on about whether somebody said they were "going to open the source and let people have a look at it" in 1973 is as irrelevant as the fact that plastic polymers are organic but not "Organic."

dizhnOP3y ago

Are you all replying to something the parent said or something? I am not talking about something so simple as the term "open source". In my eyes open source is free software just in a shinier package. (We do seem to be largely in agreement you and I by the way)

skybrian3y ago

AS far as I know, OSI didn’t appropriate anyone’s work. If you’re going to make an accusation like that, you should explain specifically what you mean. what work? Where do they claim ownership? Who had ownership before? How do you know?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse