Ironic. 'Gaslighting' is a term which specifically means manipulating someone into doubting their own memory and sanity by constantly contradicting what they have experienced. Co-opting it to mean any kind of misleading language dilutes the original meaning and is attempting to tap into the significant negative connotations of the term.
Behavior which explicitly meets your definition is seen a lot too in openwashing, like claims that the OSD retroactively defined "open source" or that there's never been a consensus on the meaning.
But your definition is exceedingly specific, to the point of rendering the term much less useful. Here's the Wikipedia definition given verbatim:
> Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person or a group covertly sows seeds of doubt in a targeted individual, making them question their own memory, perception, or judgment, often evoking in them cognitive dissonance and other changes such as low self-esteem. Using denial, misdirection, contradiction, and misinformation, gaslighting involves attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's beliefs.
I agree that it's often falsely claimed that 'open source' was co-opted, though I suspect this is quite frequently not deliberate, since the term has become so common it seems 'obvious' that it was commonly used before being coined by the OSI (I in general support using the term 'open source' precisely, and I was in support of those calling for the removal of its use to describe this license). But I still think gaslighting is the wrong term to use for doing this (the wiki definition you've given doesn't differ significantly from what I said). revisionism, maybe, and it certainly doesn't match the definition and context in which it was used in your comment above.
You are categorically incorrect here. Being open for modification is broader than just being extensible. He's using language correctly, and you're reacting emotionally to this whole situation.
Yes it comes close to the open source branding, no it is not the open source branding, they even distance themselves quite clearly right in the header of the page.
>You are categorically incorrect here. Being open for modification is broader than just being extensible.
What does the word "open" have to do with extensibility? Absolutely nothing. You had to phrase this as "open for modification" to make your point, why isn't "open" alone sufficient? My local museum is open from 10 AM to 8 PM daily, at least when COVID-19 is behind us. Does that mean I can bring my own exhibits, or remove the existing ones? No.
"Open" alone is fine. "Open source" has a specific meaning. "Free and open" is deliberately cribbing off of the well-known phrase "free and open source". How about this: why is "open and free" less suitable?
I added the "for modification" to reference the open/closed principle of object oriented programming. For many programmers the word open has everything to do with extensibility.
"Open and free" sounds like a great suggestion, maybe we could lead with that? Maybe I missed some discussion about that suggestion, I only responded to your remark about the word 'open'.
The typical way to describe this, especially in this sector, would be "royalty-free", right? "Royalty-free shared source game engine" would be about 10x better than either "free and open" or "open and free", which sounds intentionally misleading (even if it's not).
No, because the royalty says something whether you have to pay, but what is meant is that it's not just shared source, you're actually allowed to use modify and extend the source, under certain conditions.
Folks here were previously arguing that when Defold is said to be "free", you're not saying it's capital-F Free, but instead that it's gratis. Now you're saying that the "free" part was referring to something like the FSF's version of free (albeit incompatible!) all along. Pick a position.
No, you started to talk about things being gratis ("royalty-free"), and I'm pointing out that that's not what we're talking about.
Or are you saying that because I'm stating that open is referring to the licensing, that implies the free refers to the gratis part? I guess that's correct, but that's not a point I raised earlier so I'm not inconsistent in my position.
> No, you started to talk about things being gratis
No. That didn't begin with me. This entire discussion is filled with people defending your use of "free" to mean gratis.
> I'm pointing out that that's not what we're talking about
Okay, well now it's not clear what you're trying to communicate with the word "free".
My point was that if you were using the word "free" to mean gratis, then the best thing would be to call it "royalty-free" instead. That's already the accepted nomenclature for creative/industry use, anyway, and it'd be the least confusing choice for this case in particular.
Since I'm not using the word free I'm not trying to communicate anything with it. I think maybe you're confusing me with someone else. You're in the wrong thread at the very least.
Jeez, why did I forget I wrote that. You're totally right I apologize. In my defense it wasn't my idea to call it that, but it makes total sense that you'd start a discussion about it, I guess I was just confused.
