I'm with you. Educated comments are rare. The only good articles are HN are business advice. Rest, including technology is fanboyism, conjectures and one-upmanship.
I'm guessing you're referring to google over the Hugo Barra incident? Not a big fan of google for using open source as purely a PR stunt and not releasing gmail as open source but I don't think Google forces anyone to pay a protection fee though.
I don't think Google is so bad. They're just doing what's good for their investors.
I make sure that I never read on side. If I read something international on NYTimes, I go to RT.com to read the opposing account. When I read something national on WaPo or NYTimes, I go read the account on Brietbart. If it's CNN, I go read the Fox account.
All these times I pray that these accounts are opposite. The rare times when they match, it's a signal that someone very powerful wants something done. E.g. Iraq war. NYT and WaPo and everybody had proofs that they had WMDs
Can you please tell us which other people are billionaires?
OR
Are you trusting the same publications that George W Bush and republicans turned into paid propaganda to say that Iraq as Le weaponzzz of mass destruction? Remember NYT, WaPo, CNN were the major trusted news orgs that GOP bought.
Well, specifically, it implies an open source license under the OSI definition, which happens to be almost identical in a licenses covered to the Free Software definition from the FSF.
It might to you, but it shouldn't. The definition of open source is not controlled by the OSI; they only organize licenses and certify licenses as OSI-approved. However, you don't need an OSI-approved license to be open source. There are many open source packages that are not under an OSI license--most famously, SQLite.
You don't need to use an OSI-approved license to be Open Source, but you need to use a license that complies with OSI's Open Source definition. Otherwise, the term would be meaningless.
They didn't invent the term. The term was invented first. The OSI was founded later. See the OSI's own post on this [1].
A much more detailed discussion of the origin of the term and its initial use appears here [2]. The latter link in particular is interesting reading, because it includes the political dimensions (especiall w.r.t O'Reilly's difficulties with the FSF).
