The title we changed it to is a verbatim sentence from the post (which is what we always try to do when we change a title), and thus is also/still the article author's opinion.
But with this title, the discussion can be drawn towards the question of whether the license would or wouldn’t meet the widely regarded definition of open source, rather than whether it meets each commenter’s own definition of open source, which would be a much less gratifying discussion.
NB: A subtitle is one option HN prefers, but there are other options, including lifting a line from the article itself. "Always" is too strong a qualifier.
(I've frequently suggested title changes to HN's mod team, I'm pretty familiar with this.)
Comments
The title we changed it to is a verbatim sentence from the post (which is what we always try to do when we change a title), and thus is also/still the article author's opinion.
But with this title, the discussion can be drawn towards the question of whether the license would or wouldn’t meet the widely regarded definition of open source, rather than whether it meets each commenter’s own definition of open source, which would be a much less gratifying discussion.
NB: A subtitle is one option HN prefers, but there are other options, including lifting a line from the article itself. "Always" is too strong a qualifier.
(I've frequently suggested title changes to HN's mod team, I'm pretty familiar with this.)
And, just so readers don't have to take my word, here's dang on the topic:
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29425675> <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42679582>