Open source dmd on Reddit!

[Don]

Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> Don, el  8 de marzo a las 07:39 me escribiste:
>> Gregor Richards wrote:
>>> I sort of hate to throw myself into the fray, especially since my studies have 
>>> kept me more-or-less detached from D entirely, but ...
>>> I realize people are going to misuse the term Open Source. However, the term is 
>>> NOT generic, and DOES have a specific meaning; it is in fact trademarked, and 
>>> using it to describe software that does not fit the Open Source Definition is 
>>> in violation of the trademark. 
>> Wow! I didn't know that. It's not going to stay that way for long, in fact I'd 
>> be surprised if a court case right now didn't rule that it's already become 
>> generic. For example, I have never *once* seen it written as "Open Source(TM)". 
>> And I've read dozens of GNU sites.
> 
> I don't know if Open Source is a TM, but I'm sure you can't find
> information about it in GNU sites =)
> 
> GNU advocates Free Software instead of Open Source. It's very similar but
> not the same, Free Sowftware is more "viral".


I found it isn't trademarked, actually.

> 
>> But more
>>> importantly than that, it's confusing to the loads of people out here who use 
>>> F/OSS and depend on the freedoms it provides. Without redistribution rights, 
>>> F/OSS is substantially less valuable, as it doesn't provide any escape if the 
>>> original creator loses interest, spontaneously combusts, decides he hates 
>>> giving away his source and closes it again, etc, etc, etc.
>>
>> I had thought that open = !closed. With this release, DMD is definitely not 
>> closed source.
> 
> Well, I think it's closed. I just opened a window to peak inside =)
> 
>> Your comments imply that there's actually 3 states: open, closed, and
>> inbetween.  Which is pretty confusing. (BTW, it's not clear to me that
>> "open source" and "Open Source" are the same).
> 
> I think Open Source has a well established meaning, whether you like it or
> not (as well as Free Software). If you use that term with another meaning
> you are just confusing people (and even pissing off people who try to make
> a stand with FLOSS). Unless you want to buy some publicity with the fuzz,
> it's better not to do it =)
> 
Yes. But it's become apparent to me that it's a stupid term.

To quote Richard Stallman:
------
However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software” 
is “You can look at the source code,” and most people seem to think 
that's what it means. That is a much weaker criterion than free 
software, and much weaker than the official definition of open source. 
It includes many programs that are neither free nor open source.

Since that obvious meaning for “open source” is not the meaning that its 
advocates intend, the result is that most people misunderstand the term. 
------[etc]
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

I'll try to never use the term "open source" again. EVER.