[wslack]

> is it fine to work on open source projects at Meta, or is it bad because Meta is bad?

I think OP would say its better to work on open source at Meta than closed source at Meta, and we should celebrate someone being paid to write open source. We can also condemn their specific employer while not denigrating their open source compensation.

re your second point, looking at this thread, "what is open source" is taking up a lot of the brainspace.

[palata]

> re your second point, looking at this thread, "what is open source" is taking up a lot of the brainspace.

A lot of those discussions are not about the definition of open source (but something closely related, like "does it suck that it is difficult to get a new open source license OSI-approved?" or "should the JSON license be OSI-approved?", etc).

But "open source" is defined, has been for a while, and those who disagree with the meaning and would like to merge "source available" and "open source" are just fighting a useless fight IMO.

And really, in the featured article, the author clearly says "I will redefine 'open source' so that I don't have to say that I was wrong in my toot and in my book". To me it's like if I tooted "my favourite color in the visible spectrum is microwave", got pissed at people telling me that "microwave" is not in the "visible spectrum", and wrote a whole definition section explaining why I can't accept that I was wrong.

[simonw]

"in my book" in that post didn't mean an actual book, it meant "in my opinion".