I use "open source" personally, but it depends if there is ambiguity.
"Open-source" is a compound modifier which are used to avoid ambiguity.
Example:
"Man-eating shark" could be read "man eating shark" without the hyphen, which can change the meaning to a man eating a shark instead of a shark eating a man.
"open-source" occurs 138 times
"open source" occurs 119 times
I can't think of a scenario where "open source" leads to ambiguity. I would argue "open-source" removes any chance of ambiguity and is the better choice, but for aesthetic purposes I prefer "open source".
I usually use "open source" but I try to refer to the actual license to avoid ambiguity whenever possible. e.g: rather than say "This repo is open source" I'd rather say "This repo is MIT licensed".
4 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 15.7 ms ] threadNo one else seems to be picking up on my typographical hacktivism though.
"Open-source" is a compound modifier which are used to avoid ambiguity.
Example: "Man-eating shark" could be read "man eating shark" without the hyphen, which can change the meaning to a man eating a shark instead of a shark eating a man.
Wikipedia switches constantly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
"open-source" occurs 138 times "open source" occurs 119 times
I can't think of a scenario where "open source" leads to ambiguity. I would argue "open-source" removes any chance of ambiguity and is the better choice, but for aesthetic purposes I prefer "open source".