4 ms·
> Ok, I simplified the wording and the meaning was lost. Let me fix it. I meant, I got a binary but that binary was produced from a BSD/MIT/Apache/whatever-lice
by meanduck 11y ago
> Ok, I simplified the wording and the meaning was lost. Let me fix it. I meant, I got a binary but that binary was produced from a BSD/MIT/Apache/whatever-licensed source code. If that source isn't available to me (like on the almost every single Android phone we have out there), I'm basically powerless.
The BSD/MIT is the agreement between original devs and binary provider. There is no BSD/MIT between binary provider and you. If all the company is giving you binary but not source I dont think there can be BSD/MIT. So if someone gives you something labeled as BSD/MIT its going to be open source with no string attached.
> This is certainly wrong. Unless you're not using OSI definition of open source, but something of your own. Or if we mean something different under the term "proprietary".
It appears I am using my definiton for open source. To me open source means something whose source files are available.
So proprietary can come with sources which is likely for dev centric software.
> It was predicted long ago - as most users don't possess any engineering skills, they don't exercise their freedoms to access the source code, modify it and distribute the modifications. The freedom to distribute the original software lost it to the unauthorized distribution ("piracy") and freemium-type software. Users don't care (actually IIRC it was shown that they tend to cope with whatever inconvenience they find, rather than try to fix it - that's also how privacy wars were lost), and developers find it that proprietary software has a well-known business models to bring profits, while free software requires to tread carefully.
I agree GPL is user-friendly but it is so at the cost of dev-unfriendliness.
> Yet, it's wrong that "all it does is stop devs from using it". The word "all" is surely incorrect. It does stop some devs from using it - two groups, actully: a) those who want to develop proprietary software and b) those who just can't stand it for any personal reasons. But that's not all it does - I've mentioned what it also does above.
We are on HN so almost all devs are people who develop proprietary softwares. Even HN aside, all most all software development is proprietary. Hence the trend.
In my ideal world open source development works like this. We come togther, do our part while asking nothing in return and solve a common problem. Thats it. No strings or condition or anything.
- schoen 11y agoIt seems you've created your own definitions for both "open source" and "free software" in order to exclude copyleft from both categories and allow proprietary software to be included in both categories. Both of these terms have definitions going back decades by now which contradict yours; in the open source case, one of the reasons for starting to using the term in the first place was to avoid possible misconceptions or misunderstandings of what "free software" referred to!
- meanduck 11y agoDefiniton I am using is common sense. OSI one is overly complex for example it has point "5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups". > It seems you've created your own definitions for both "open source" and "free software" in order to exclude copyleft from both categories Copyleft is not a requirement for open source or OSI Open Source. It is for FSF Free Software though. I am aware of how "free software" can be misinterpreted. Thats why I havnt used it. But allow me to explain whats wrong with FSF definition. The word free implies unrestricted freedom like MIT/Public Domain which is true for users but not devs (proprietary devs to be specific). Nothing wrong with intention of this perticular definiton. But choice of the word is misleading. "republic software" may be ? Also note both are lawyers definitons. Just curious what would you label something whose source you can view and/or modify for personal use ? Google says open source. All this definition debate aside, last 5 posts have been about dev unfriendly restrictions of GPL/copyleft/share-alike. Free software was not mentioned at all. Only once[1] I mention open source which is to illustrate the point that proprietary does not necessarily mean you cannot view the source and cannot modify for personal use. Proprietary certainly does not come with same big restrictions as GPL. For a dev, MIT/BSD > Proprietary with source > Proprietary >>> GPL. > Both of these terms have definitions going back decades by now which contradict yours; in the open source case, one of the reasons for starting to using the term in the first place was to avoid possible misconceptions or misunderstandings of what "free software" referred to! Yes both have been standardized but I doubt the actual adoption. [1] Okay I have used it more than once. But every other usage works with either definitons.
- schoen 11y ago> Just curious what would you label something whose source you can view and/or modify for personal use ? Google says open source. I'd probably call it "viewable source", "source code", "software with source code", or "software with published source code".
- JupiterMoon 11y ago> Proprietary certainly does not come with same big restrictions as GPL. Have you actually read the EULAs on proprietary software?