Comment by NiloCK
2 months ago
Again and forever:
These fights stem from usage of a proprietary definition of Open Source (the OSI's). Obviously the definition doesn't resonate with DHH, and he uses the words 'open' and 'source' colloquially. Open, as in a book or a window, source, as in the thing that gets compiled into bits and bobs that run on computers. You wouldn't jump on someone's "open letter" to city hall because of a lack of freedom to fork it.
This could stop if people capitalized their reference to Open Source, which is standard English treatment of proper nouns. Unlikely to happen though, because insisting that "my definitions are your definitions" seems to be a primal tribal instinct for humans.
Pretty much the most sound comment in this section. It's like some organization "stole" the meaning of the words "open source" and called it "Open Source" (with the capitalization). Now you can't say your source is open for anyone to read anymore because it's not "Open Source"™ as "That Entity"™ defines it.
I for one disagree that software can't be "open source" if the OSI says it's not open source. There are varying degrees of open source. Since when do they get the right to define what is "open source"?
In my view, "open source" but doesn't give you permission to host a commercial service that directly competes with it, is still a degree of open source, and reasonable.