I'm starting to think that marketing products as open-source introduces a liability:
> Open-Source Myth: Despite being marketed as open-source, Ghost restricts open discussion in forums, often editing or removing user posts, and provides no clarity on upcoming releases or feature development...
OSS has come to be associated with an incredibly high-bar of community engagement and an expectation for open and transparent participation. Maybe the term has just gathered too much baggage at this point to be worth shouting about when talking to the general public.
Why are people raising their voices? What are the true causes of these open discussions and expectations? To answer these questions, we need to go back to the beginning.
> Open-Source Myth: Despite being marketed as open-source, Ghost restricts open discussion in forums, often editing or removing user posts, and provides no clarity on upcoming releases or feature development...
OSS has come to be associated with an incredibly high-bar of community engagement and an expectation for open and transparent participation. Maybe the term has just gathered too much baggage at this point to be worth shouting about when talking to the general public.