Comment by jibal
14 hours ago
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.
Your claim that I'm bad faith is itself bad-faith.
> I didn't give any sort of definition of antonym
Oh I'm sorry, what is your definition of antonym? I thought I could understand it from your earlier assertion where you used your definition, but I guess I should have asked you what your definition is first. Pardon me for assuming you wanted your earlier statement to be understood as-is, and not require supplementary info. So yeah. I'm waiting. Or you can stop being a weasel liar that isn't even very good at it.
Also I'm sorry I "went on the attack" but hey, I thought you'd enjoy that since it's all you do here.