logoalt Hacker News

engeljohnbtoday at 12:42 PM1 replyview on HN

>> You're claiming the terms laid out in the OSD were motivated by hopes of cultivating a community.

> I didn’t say that.

If you don't think the statement's true, then what exactly is the meaning of this passage, and what was your purpose in quoting it?

> ... and convince them to create and improve source code by participating in an engaged community.

The thesis of the post is that publishing Open Source software doesn't carry an obligation of maintaining a community. To determine if that's true, what software counts as open source is relevant information. Anything to do with the "movement" isn't.

Your original comment started with the words "Open Source is..." If there's an authoritative document specifying exactly what Open Source is, and it plainly contradicts what you say, then you're wrong.

> Open source is not merely a license choice.

> The OSD defines criteria by which software licenses can be considered open source.

These two statements are exactly contradictory.


Replies

JimDabelltoday at 12:54 PM

> > >> You're claiming the terms laid out in the OSD were motivated by hopes of cultivating a community.

> > I didn’t say that.

> If you don't think the statement's true

I didn’t say that either. Is it really so difficult for you to respond to what I actually say?

I am talking about cultural norms. You are trying to cram what I am saying into something that is purely about license terms. I am repeatedly telling you that I am not talking about license terms and you are repeatedly ignoring that.

> If there's an authoritative document specifying exactly what Open Source is, and it plainly contradicts what you say, then you're wrong.

Again, the OSD defines criteria for licenses, it does not define the movement as a whole. I am talking about the movement, not license terms. If you are unwilling to engage with that point, then don’t. But stop mischaracterising what I am saying.

> > Open source is not merely a license choice.

> > The OSD defines criteria by which software licenses can be considered open source.

> These two statements are exactly contradictory.

They are not. Every time I say “Open Source” you are reading “OSD” but I am repeatedly telling you I am talking about the movement, not the OSD that talks about license terms.

show 1 reply