Comment by jibal
15 hours 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.
Just sounds like you need to look up the definition of antonym to re-acquaint yourself with it, because your definition seems to have drifted from reality.
Random erroneous bad faith attack. I didn't give any sort of definition of antonym, I simply said that "closed source" can be arbitrarily defined as the antonym of open source--this is true even if I have no idea what "antonym means" (which of course is not the case).
Bad person will be henceforth ignored.
P.S. Oh, this is the person who claimed that "No, the original definition of open-source is source code that is visible (open) to the public" and when asked for a citation went on the attack.