> The problem is that companies like Microsoft created licenses that are semi-open to attract kudos
That's the kind of move I squarely put under the "disingenuous" category.
> If the FOSS community changed “open” with “public”
That's not what I meant, what I meant is that the technically incorrect use of "open source" by MS&al would better be named "public source" / PSS. "source available" / SAS just doesn't have the same pattern/ring to it, which I presume is part of why it does not catch on.
The humble suggestion here kind of rides on the easily understood idea that making, say, a GitHub repo "public" doesn't make the code magically FOSS.
Then, by contrast with "public", "open source" gets a bit more of a specific meaning.
But the entire reason companies misuse “open source” is so that people are confused into thinking those companies are supporting FOSS by giving back to the community when in fact it’s all just marketing trickery.
That's the kind of move I squarely put under the "disingenuous" category.
> If the FOSS community changed “open” with “public”
That's not what I meant, what I meant is that the technically incorrect use of "open source" by MS&al would better be named "public source" / PSS. "source available" / SAS just doesn't have the same pattern/ring to it, which I presume is part of why it does not catch on.
The humble suggestion here kind of rides on the easily understood idea that making, say, a GitHub repo "public" doesn't make the code magically FOSS.
Then, by contrast with "public", "open source" gets a bit more of a specific meaning.