> Maybe it's not deliberate, maybe they are just unaware, the 90's is a long time ago now.
The history is much discussed. This ignorance would be fixed by a Wikipedia article. And I doubt an open source developer with forceful unconventional opinions about the definitions of open source and FOSS never saw FSF or OSI mentioned.
> The established common use is only really within the communities that use them.
This is tautological. Terms are used in the communities which use them.
The article was directed to the community which uses terms like open source and FOSS. I am confident my comments took less time to write than the article.
> Isn't that the way with everything when there's a difference of opinion on the internet. The ones that have the most funding/largest platform end up winning the argument.
No. Most attempts to change the definition of open source come from come from companies attempting to profit from the change. Most resistance comes from individuals protecting a gift economy.
The history is much discussed. This ignorance would be fixed by a Wikipedia article. And I doubt an open source developer with forceful unconventional opinions about the definitions of open source and FOSS never saw FSF or OSI mentioned.
> The established common use is only really within the communities that use them.
This is tautological. Terms are used in the communities which use them.
The article was directed to the community which uses terms like open source and FOSS. I am confident my comments took less time to write than the article.
> Isn't that the way with everything when there's a difference of opinion on the internet. The ones that have the most funding/largest platform end up winning the argument.
No. Most attempts to change the definition of open source come from come from companies attempting to profit from the change. Most resistance comes from individuals protecting a gift economy.