The OSI’s definition of open-source software is the de facto definition used by most people, and for most of the remaining people that don’t, they (mistakenly, because they define “free” software, not “open-source”) defer to the FSF’s defintion of free software.
So yes, you should be explicitly noting that what you define as “open” has nothing at all to do with the far-and-away most widely used definition(s) of “open-source”.
Yes, and I said I want open-source to be open. As in not just open-source, but also open to all. That is my personal moral value, and I advocate for that. What the OSI supports has nothing to do with that.
I want a lot of things too, but what I want most of all is to live in a society governed by the rule of law. There are no absolute rights - limiting the freedoms of people who are complicit in crimes or enable them is how we protect the rights of everyone else. Simple as.
The OSI’s definition of open-source software is the de facto definition used by most people, and for most of the remaining people that don’t, they (mistakenly, because they define “free” software, not “open-source”) defer to the FSF’s defintion of free software.
So yes, you should be explicitly noting that what you define as “open” has nothing at all to do with the far-and-away most widely used definition(s) of “open-source”.
Yes, and I said I want open-source to be open. As in not just open-source, but also open to all. That is my personal moral value, and I advocate for that. What the OSI supports has nothing to do with that.
I want a lot of things too, but what I want most of all is to live in a society governed by the rule of law. There are no absolute rights - limiting the freedoms of people who are complicit in crimes or enable them is how we protect the rights of everyone else. Simple as.