3 ms·

You just described free software, not open source. I'm not even a huge defender of free/libre licensing and all that, but in plain English the semantics are ju

by mpeg 11y ago

You just described free software, not open source. I'm not even a huge defender of free/libre licensing and all that, but in plain English the semantics are just different.

cyphar 11y ago
> You just described free software, not open source. Someone hasn't read "the open source definition". But in either case, free software is what matters here. What you describe as "open source" is actually proprietary software.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- vacri 11y ago
  Someone hasn't read Stallman's issues with (scare quotes) "the open source definition": https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated Also, what software did mpeg describe? I can't see any such reference. And if you mistakenly meant my reference to Windows/Office, well, that was meant as a hypothetical. What term would you use for "publicly visible, but not hackable-by-license" software as opposed to "publicly not visible, and not hackable-by-license"? The former satisfies many concerns with vendor software, in that you can examine the code yourself for bugs, vulnerabilities, or backdoors.
  - cyphar 11y ago
    > Someone hasn't read Stallman's issues with (scare quotes) "the open source definition": https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated That link doesn't seem to have anything to do with what you said. That isn't Stallman's annotations -- he doesn't use the term "open source" and probably wouldn't want his words published on opensource.org. You probably wanted to post this: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.en.h.... The main reason that the FSF and Richard Stallman distinguish free software and "open source" is because "open source" doesn't reference the moral underpinnings of the free software movement. It's just a set of 10 guidelines that appear to be entirely arbitrary (because they're secretly derived from the free software definition, but with more restrictions in some cases). > What term would you use for "publicly visible, but not hackable-by-license" software as opposed to "publicly not visible, and not hackable-by-license"? The former satisfies many concerns with vendor software, in that you can examine the code yourself for bugs, vulnerabilities, or backdoors. I would call both proprietary. The distinction is that they give you the code for the program as part of their proprietary software package. It doesn't make it non-proprietary if that's the distribution model they use.
  - mindcrime 11y ago
    What term would you use for "publicly visible, but not hackable-by-license" Historically, the term "Shared Source" has been used to refer to those kinds of situations, although it's not exactly a strict definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_source
bigger_cheese 11y ago
No. Both sides of the FSF/OSI schism are the same page with respect to Modification and redistribution. Being able to see the source is not enough you have to be able to use the source in a meaningful way. Same thing with an NDA. if you make source available under NDA that is not Open Source either.
- mpeg 11y ago
  The FSF acknowledge that "open source" is a bad term as it's easy to misunderstand for "code for which the source is available to the public". I completely agree that source under NDA is a different scenario.

by mpeg 11y ago

You just described free software, not open source. I'm not even a huge defender of free/libre licensing and all that, but in plain English the semantics are just different.

cyphar 11y ago

> You just described free software, not open source. Someone hasn't read "the open source definition". But in either case, free software is what matters here. What you describe as "open source" is actually proprietary software.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
vacri 11y ago
Someone hasn't read Stallman's issues with (scare quotes) "the open source definition": https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated Also, what software did mpeg describe? I can't see any such reference. And if you mistakenly meant my reference to Windows/Office, well, that was meant as a hypothetical. What term would you use for "publicly visible, but not hackable-by-license" software as opposed to "publicly not visible, and not hackable-by-license"? The former satisfies many concerns with vendor software, in that you can examine the code yourself for bugs, vulnerabilities, or backdoors.
- cyphar 11y ago
  > Someone hasn't read Stallman's issues with (scare quotes) "the open source definition": https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated That link doesn't seem to have anything to do with what you said. That isn't Stallman's annotations -- he doesn't use the term "open source" and probably wouldn't want his words published on opensource.org. You probably wanted to post this: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.en.h.... The main reason that the FSF and Richard Stallman distinguish free software and "open source" is because "open source" doesn't reference the moral underpinnings of the free software movement. It's just a set of 10 guidelines that appear to be entirely arbitrary (because they're secretly derived from the free software definition, but with more restrictions in some cases). > What term would you use for "publicly visible, but not hackable-by-license" software as opposed to "publicly not visible, and not hackable-by-license"? The former satisfies many concerns with vendor software, in that you can examine the code yourself for bugs, vulnerabilities, or backdoors. I would call both proprietary. The distinction is that they give you the code for the program as part of their proprietary software package. It doesn't make it non-proprietary if that's the distribution model they use.
- mindcrime 11y ago
  What term would you use for "publicly visible, but not hackable-by-license" Historically, the term "Shared Source" has been used to refer to those kinds of situations, although it's not exactly a strict definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_source

bigger_cheese 11y ago

No. Both sides of the FSF/OSI schism are the same page with respect to Modification and redistribution. Being able to see the source is not enough you have to be able to use the source in a meaningful way. Same thing with an NDA. if you make source available under NDA that is not Open Source either.

mpeg 11y ago
The FSF acknowledge that "open source" is a bad term as it's easy to misunderstand for "code for which the source is available to the public". I completely agree that source under NDA is a different scenario.