5 ms·

I don't think the author uses public repositories, they just use git(hub) collaboratively amongst their team and involve the client in decision making. I certa

I don't think the author uses public repositories, they just use git(hub) collaboratively amongst their team and involve the client in decision making. I certainly didn't get the impression that what they're producing is actually OSS.

fit2rule 11y ago
I think that there are various scales of "open-source"-ness, and these scales are moderately aligned with the abstraction layers inherent in the platform-in-use. Its quite possible to share your source code with your client, who runs it, completely openly. In fact, this is a successful model for countless decades in certain software markets, as well as a standard model of behavior, in general, in software industry. The way it worked is, you're a programmer->you write source code->the business paying you to write source code builds your code->they run it->customer. However, this facet, like all other facets in the big gem of our forever-changing industry, is not as prevalent in certain software markets - for example, web&etc. There are still plenty of software developers who are in fact sharing the source - directly with their customers. As per any one of a scale of licenses. tl;dr - please don't conflate 'open source' with 'F/OSS', et al. If your customer owns the sources, you've opened your sources to them. This is a scale, not absolute, as other ends of the scale include closed-source business models.
- sleepychu 11y ago
  Can you give me some examples where this conflation produces a confusing meaning? I'm not familiar with people using the word 'open' in this context to mean anything other than free access (with varying limits and obligations on use and redistribution).
- hvis 11y ago
  Does a code become "open" once I've "opened" it to someone? I don't think so. What you're describing sounds more like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_source.

fit2rule 11y ago

I think that there are various scales of "open-source"-ness, and these scales are moderately aligned with the abstraction layers inherent in the platform-in-use. Its quite possible to share your source code with your client, who runs it, completely openly. In fact, this is a successful model for countless decades in certain software markets, as well as a standard model of behavior, in general, in software industry. The way it worked is, you're a programmer->you write source code->the business paying you to write source code builds your code->they run it->customer. However, this facet, like all other facets in the big gem of our forever-changing industry, is not as prevalent in certain software markets - for example, web&etc. There are still plenty of software developers who are in fact sharing the source - directly with their customers. As per any one of a scale of licenses. tl;dr - please don't conflate 'open source' with 'F/OSS', et al. If your customer owns the sources, you've opened your sources to them. This is a scale, not absolute, as other ends of the scale include closed-source business models.

sleepychu 11y ago
Can you give me some examples where this conflation produces a confusing meaning? I'm not familiar with people using the word 'open' in this context to mean anything other than free access (with varying limits and obligations on use and redistribution).
hvis 11y ago
Does a code become "open" once I've "opened" it to someone? I don't think so. What you're describing sounds more like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_source.