3 ms·

> The projects without license can in theory be considered open source (the source is published after all) That is not what "Open Source" means. > but legally

by rmc 10y ago

> The projects without license can in theory be considered open source (the source is published after all) That is not what "Open Source" means. > but legally, the copyright is still owned by the authors In Open Source/Free Software, the copyright on the software is still owned by the original authors.

calpaterson 10y ago
Yeah, it seems like he doesn't understand the basics of the law in this area which makes the Somalia analogy pretty ignorant. To expand on what you said: the term open source has a specific meaning and it doesn't mean "the source is available". From Wikipedia: > "Open-source software (OSS) is computer software with its source code made available with a license in which the copyright holder provides the rights to study, change, and distribute the software to anyone and for any purpose." Once upon a time most of the JDK had the source available - with all rights reserved. It was emphatically not OSS.
- mbreese 10y ago
  Even though that is the predominant interpretation of "open source" in the tech community, I think one could argue that the term "open source" has no legal meaning (outside of a license agreement, that is). So for the purposes of this argument (code w/o a license), the term is meaningless.
ashitlerferad 10y ago
> That is not what "Open Source" means. "Open Source" means different things to different people and not everyone accepts the OSI definition, there are even people who are angry at ESR for grabbing the phrase for himself and making his definition the most popular one.
- davexunit 10y ago
  >"Open Source" means different things to different people And those people are wrong. The OSI definition is the definition. Those that want it to mean something else are trying to fool people, which we call "open washing."
- jordigh 10y ago
  esr didn't coin the term, Christine Peterson did, and Tim O'Reilly funded the OSI compaign. Also, nobody used the term before OSI did, except with an unrelated meaning in the intelligence community. http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgotten-about-open-source/ http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgot...
- rmc 10y ago
  Pedantically you're probably correct. However the OSI term is basically what people mean when they say "Open Source" now. Much like many countries have a mile, if you started using Roman miles in England or the USA people would think you misleading

by rmc 10y ago

calpaterson 10y ago

Yeah, it seems like he doesn't understand the basics of the law in this area which makes the Somalia analogy pretty ignorant. To expand on what you said: the term open source has a specific meaning and it doesn't mean "the source is available". From Wikipedia: > "Open-source software (OSS) is computer software with its source code made available with a license in which the copyright holder provides the rights to study, change, and distribute the software to anyone and for any purpose." Once upon a time most of the JDK had the source available - with all rights reserved. It was emphatically not OSS.

mbreese 10y ago
Even though that is the predominant interpretation of "open source" in the tech community, I think one could argue that the term "open source" has no legal meaning (outside of a license agreement, that is). So for the purposes of this argument (code w/o a license), the term is meaningless.

ashitlerferad 10y ago

> That is not what "Open Source" means. "Open Source" means different things to different people and not everyone accepts the OSI definition, there are even people who are angry at ESR for grabbing the phrase for himself and making his definition the most popular one.

davexunit 10y ago
>"Open Source" means different things to different people And those people are wrong. The OSI definition is the definition. Those that want it to mean something else are trying to fool people, which we call "open washing."
jordigh 10y ago
esr didn't coin the term, Christine Peterson did, and Tim O'Reilly funded the OSI compaign. Also, nobody used the term before OSI did, except with an unrelated meaning in the intelligence community. http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgotten-about-open-source/ http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgot...
rmc 10y ago
Pedantically you're probably correct. However the OSI term is basically what people mean when they say "Open Source" now. Much like many countries have a mile, if you started using Roman miles in England or the USA people would think you misleading