I've read some post form people who can't stand open source as a verb.
I wonder what will be their reaction when they read that "R.E.M. open-sources its music videos". Does it really make sense to say a video is open source? Where's the source?
It's ironic that when open source was started to not emphasize the ambiguous word free (as in free beer/as in free speech?), in this case it would have been better to say "REM freed their videos" as it is also a free license.
Anyway, I think I just joined the club against making open source a verb, as I pretty much prefer to say that "R.E.M. published music videos under an open source license".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment