Comment by geokon

2 months ago

cant blame him. We're in a bit of a bananas situation where open source isnt the antonym of closed source

10 comments

geokon

Reply
jefftk  2 months ago

This isn't that uncommon:

* If a country doesn't have "closed borders" then many foreigners can visit if they follow certain rules around visas, purpose, and length of stay. If instead anyone can enter and live there with minimal restrictions we say it has "open borders".

* If a journal isn't "closed access" it is free to read. If you additionally have permissions to redistribute, reuse, etc then it's "open access".

* If an organization doesn't practice "closed meetings" then outsiders can attend meetings to observe. If it additionally provides advance notice, allows public attendance without permission, and records or publishes minutes, then it has “open meetings.”

* A club that doesn't have "closed membership" is open to admitting members. Anyone can join provided they meet relevant criteria (if any) then it's "open membership".

EDIT: expanded this into a post: https://www.jefftk.com/p/open-source-is-a-normal-term

jibal  2 months ago

Who says it isn't? "closed source" doesn't have a formal definition, but can be arbitrarily defined as the antonym of open source, and when people use the term that's usually what they mean.

And that has nothing to do with whether someone can be "blamed" for ignoring the actual meaning of a term with a formal definition.