5 ms·

open source means the source is open. that's all it means. free software is what you're referring to and it's something entirely different

the_af 11y ago
Even without getting into Free Software territory, there are reasonable expectations about what open source means. It's not just "you are free to read the code". See: - https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software
- chris_wot 11y ago
  Indeed - "open" means open to modification.
- arcticfox 11y ago
  What do you call source that is open to read then? It's definitely not closed-source. I have always thought of source as either open (with many flavors of licensing) or closed.
  - bobbyi_settv 11y ago
    > What do you call source that is open to read then? "Closed source" is the standard term. Since you seen to not like that term, you could go with "proprietary".
    - twr 11y ago
      > "Closed source" is the standard term. Since you seen to not like that term, you could go with "proprietary". Your definitions go contrary to the understandings and usages of every non-F/OSS person on the Internet. For example, both "closed source" and "proprietary" are used to mean source-code-not-available in gaming circles. Perhaps the open source movements should seek intuitive definitions of terms rather than invent vague nomenclature that only makes them unable to communicate with normal users.
      - the_af 11y ago
        The definitions of open source are actually quite technical. They are not vague like you suggest. It's unavoidable that people will be confused about terms outside their area of expertise. Since you mentioned gamers: I shudder at the vast multitude of confusing terms the various gamer communities use, like for example in WoW. However, I think you're overstating your case: I suspect few gamers, if any, will confuse leaked source code or code which you're not allowed to use in any way as "open source". I don't expect them to undestand every nuance, but surely even they understand source code you're not allowed to run or modify is not "open" in any meaningful interpretation of the term :)
        twr 11y ago
        > but surely even they understand source code you're not allowed to run or modify is not "open" in any meaningful interpretation of the term :) "Run" or "modify" are not requisites in the common understanding of "open source"; legality of viewing is. "Open" to them usually means it can be distributed (to them) and read without breaking the law.
        CamperBob2 11y ago
        The definitions of open source are actually quite technical. Says who? The Pope? Richard Stallman? Bernie Sanders? Some random self-appointed authority figure who goes by the name "the_af" on Hacker News? Whose name is on the trademark application?
        the_af 11y ago
        I'm not sure what you mean. I was replying to user twr who said: > Perhaps the open source movements should seek intuitive definitions of terms rather than invent vague nomenclature that only makes them unable to communicate with normal users. The "open source movements" he/she mentioned have very technical definitions of what open source means (of varying degree, of course, but have you tried reading the GPL? Do you think it's non-technical?). Of all the valid criticisms you could throw at them, "vague nomenclature" is not one. Their definitions of open source may be difficult to communicate precisely because they are very technical, not because they are "vague". I think "who" was quite clear in this context. Do you disagree?
  - Nursie 11y ago
    "Shared Source"
  - brobinson 11y ago
    I've also heard "source available" used.
    - arcticfox 11y ago
      Thanks, this seems to be the best nomenclature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Open-source_vs._source-available https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Open-sour...
- CamperBob2 11y ago
  There are many opinions regarding what constitutes "open source" (capitalized or not.) Those are two of them.
  - the_af 11y ago
    Yes, there are many opinions, but the most reasonable expectations are spelled out by the above links. These expectations are so common that anyone who uses "open source" to mean something different is being purposefully disingenuous. "Open source" is no longer an obscure concept, so fringe definitions are less acceptable. Note this is unrelated to the many incompatibilities between the various open source licenses. Also see: Microsoft's "Shared Source", an example of something that may look like open source but (with some exceptions) isn't. Disclaimer: no idea if this still exists, now that Microsoft seems to be truly embracing open source for some of its software.
    - Retric 11y ago
      English is not defined by any specific authority. All common usages are accepted, and open source as in visible source is a common usage, though perhaps not by people you spend time around.
- Retric 11y ago
  People tried to redefine the term. Originally Open Source simply meant you had the source code and hey if you have it you can edit it because well you physically can edit it. This of course did not kill the original meaning it just added a new one. Because, English is happy to have a single terms mean multiple things.
mindcrime 11y ago
Strictly speaking, "Fields of Endeavor" restrictions violate the OSD. However, my guess (and that's all it is) is that in this case, the authors aren't actually interested in enforcing such a restriction, but rather added the "educational use only" line as part of an attempt to avoid any liability for subsequent use of the code.
- drivers99 11y ago
  I had an acquaintance who was sued by Blizzard under the DMCA for creating a game server for StarCraft. That was under Vivendi which they are no longer a part of, so maybe it's different now, but I would not trust them myself. https://www.eff.org/cases/blizzard-v-bnetd https://www.eff.org/cases/blizzard-v-bnetd
  - chc 11y ago
    The people mindcrime was talking about trusting are the creators of Nostalrius, not Blizzard — though of course Blizzard will threaten you for publicly running this program just like they did Nostalrius.
joehillen 11y ago
Incorrect

the_af 11y ago

Even without getting into Free Software territory, there are reasonable expectations about what open source means. It's not just "you are free to read the code". See: - https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software

chris_wot 11y ago
Indeed - "open" means open to modification.
arcticfox 11y ago
What do you call source that is open to read then? It's definitely not closed-source. I have always thought of source as either open (with many flavors of licensing) or closed.
- bobbyi_settv 11y ago
  > What do you call source that is open to read then? "Closed source" is the standard term. Since you seen to not like that term, you could go with "proprietary".
  - twr 11y ago
    > "Closed source" is the standard term. Since you seen to not like that term, you could go with "proprietary". Your definitions go contrary to the understandings and usages of every non-F/OSS person on the Internet. For example, both "closed source" and "proprietary" are used to mean source-code-not-available in gaming circles. Perhaps the open source movements should seek intuitive definitions of terms rather than invent vague nomenclature that only makes them unable to communicate with normal users.
    - the_af 11y ago
      The definitions of open source are actually quite technical. They are not vague like you suggest. It's unavoidable that people will be confused about terms outside their area of expertise. Since you mentioned gamers: I shudder at the vast multitude of confusing terms the various gamer communities use, like for example in WoW. However, I think you're overstating your case: I suspect few gamers, if any, will confuse leaked source code or code which you're not allowed to use in any way as "open source". I don't expect them to undestand every nuance, but surely even they understand source code you're not allowed to run or modify is not "open" in any meaningful interpretation of the term :)
      - twr 11y ago
        > but surely even they understand source code you're not allowed to run or modify is not "open" in any meaningful interpretation of the term :) "Run" or "modify" are not requisites in the common understanding of "open source"; legality of viewing is. "Open" to them usually means it can be distributed (to them) and read without breaking the law.
      - CamperBob2 11y ago
        The definitions of open source are actually quite technical. Says who? The Pope? Richard Stallman? Bernie Sanders? Some random self-appointed authority figure who goes by the name "the_af" on Hacker News? Whose name is on the trademark application?
        the_af 11y ago
        I'm not sure what you mean. I was replying to user twr who said: > Perhaps the open source movements should seek intuitive definitions of terms rather than invent vague nomenclature that only makes them unable to communicate with normal users. The "open source movements" he/she mentioned have very technical definitions of what open source means (of varying degree, of course, but have you tried reading the GPL? Do you think it's non-technical?). Of all the valid criticisms you could throw at them, "vague nomenclature" is not one. Their definitions of open source may be difficult to communicate precisely because they are very technical, not because they are "vague". I think "who" was quite clear in this context. Do you disagree?
- Nursie 11y ago
  "Shared Source"
- brobinson 11y ago
  I've also heard "source available" used.
  - arcticfox 11y ago
    Thanks, this seems to be the best nomenclature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Open-source_vs._source-available https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Open-sour...
CamperBob2 11y ago
There are many opinions regarding what constitutes "open source" (capitalized or not.) Those are two of them.
- the_af 11y ago
  Yes, there are many opinions, but the most reasonable expectations are spelled out by the above links. These expectations are so common that anyone who uses "open source" to mean something different is being purposefully disingenuous. "Open source" is no longer an obscure concept, so fringe definitions are less acceptable. Note this is unrelated to the many incompatibilities between the various open source licenses. Also see: Microsoft's "Shared Source", an example of something that may look like open source but (with some exceptions) isn't. Disclaimer: no idea if this still exists, now that Microsoft seems to be truly embracing open source for some of its software.
  - Retric 11y ago
    English is not defined by any specific authority. All common usages are accepted, and open source as in visible source is a common usage, though perhaps not by people you spend time around.
Retric 11y ago
People tried to redefine the term. Originally Open Source simply meant you had the source code and hey if you have it you can edit it because well you physically can edit it. This of course did not kill the original meaning it just added a new one. Because, English is happy to have a single terms mean multiple things.

mindcrime 11y ago

Strictly speaking, "Fields of Endeavor" restrictions violate the OSD. However, my guess (and that's all it is) is that in this case, the authors aren't actually interested in enforcing such a restriction, but rather added the "educational use only" line as part of an attempt to avoid any liability for subsequent use of the code.

drivers99 11y ago
I had an acquaintance who was sued by Blizzard under the DMCA for creating a game server for StarCraft. That was under Vivendi which they are no longer a part of, so maybe it's different now, but I would not trust them myself. https://www.eff.org/cases/blizzard-v-bnetd https://www.eff.org/cases/blizzard-v-bnetd
- chc 11y ago
  The people mindcrime was talking about trusting are the creators of Nostalrius, not Blizzard — though of course Blizzard will threaten you for publicly running this program just like they did Nostalrius.

joehillen 11y ago

Incorrect