I feel that this conflicts with the definition of open source software. It's important that we maintain that definition.
It's also worth having and discussing this idea of a 'spectrum' of openness but that needs to be seperate as to not conflict with the term "open source".
It already annoys me how many projects describe themselves as "open source" when they are actually just source available.
If you want to see the issues if how software serves humanity discussed, why immediately try to derail the larger more important discussion for a stupider one about maintaining a level of linguistic pedantism that lets us theatrically slam the door of welcome in people's faces and feel smug doing it.
I feel that this conflicts with the definition of open source software. It's important that we maintain that definition.
It's also worth having and discussing this idea of a 'spectrum' of openness but that needs to be seperate as to not conflict with the term "open source".
It already annoys me how many projects describe themselves as "open source" when they are actually just source available.
Because it uses the word "open?"
If you want to see the issues if how software serves humanity discussed, why immediately try to derail the larger more important discussion for a stupider one about maintaining a level of linguistic pedantism that lets us theatrically slam the door of welcome in people's faces and feel smug doing it.