18 Jul
2021
18 Jul
'21
9:42 a.m.
David Arnold
0487 183 494
On 18 Jul 2021, at 13:30, Grant Taylor via COFF
<coff(a)minnie.tuhs.org> wrote:
On 7/16/21 10:09 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
That horse bolted when the Open Source folks claimed their definition..
“Open” was a widely used term at the time, with Open Systems in particular being a thing
complete with history, corporate good will, conferences and magazines and so on. It was
particularly valuable as the respectable corporate face of Unix (vs the feared hairy
hacker).
The attempt to leverage/hijack that to make the hairy hackers’ Free Software corporately
palatable has eclipsed the uncapitalized sense of the term. Very few people distinguish
the two, and so your meaning will often be lost.
d
You can try to argue that it should have a
different etymology
I'm not trying to argue anything.
If anything, I'm sharing what I think is a different / an alternate understanding.
I view "open source" (case insensitive) as having two different definitions,
much like "hacker" has two almost diametrically opposed definitions depending
which community you're in.
The dualism exists, and I believe that there's nothing that I can do to change that.
So why try?