4 ms·

What are the basic principles of "open source"? Because as far as I'm aware, they don't include "user freedom". It's all about practical benefits which are not

by cyphar 10y ago

What are the basic principles of "open source"? Because as far as I'm aware, they don't include "user freedom". It's all about practical benefits which are not the primary benefits of free software (the primary benefit of free software is freedom).

ghaff 10y ago
>Because as far as I'm aware, they don't include "user freedom". I'd largely disagree with that. I see "Open source" described (and describe it myself) as something that has many advantages as a way of developing software and developing communities (users and developers) around that software. But, at the same time, it's absolutely about letting users maintain control and being able to directly influence the direction of development.
- cyphar 10y ago
  The "open source definition"[1] does not agree with your reading. In fact, that annotations appear to entirely skirt around the issue of freedom. For example, their claimed reasoning for freedom 1 (freedom to modify) is: > The mere ability to read source isn't enough to support independent peer review and rapid evolutionary selection. For rapid evolution to happen, people need to be able to experiment with and redistribute modifications. No mention of user freedoms or why this is important to users, just some nebulous claim that this is related to "evolution" and "experimentation". The entire OSD is written like this, with claims that the 10 completely-arbitrary-with-no-real-logic-behind-them tennants of "open source" will somehow make your software better. How? They don't say. The four software freedoms make sense if you discuss them from the context of freedom, but the 10 "open source" rights don't make sense outside the context of freedom. [1]: https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated
  - misrepresent 10y ago
    Do you think one mission statement on one website represents the position for all of us?
    - catern 10y ago
      Clearly this has now devolved into mere semantics, but... if your position emphasizes user freedom, then your position is the "free software" position, not the "open source" position, just as a matter of the historical definitions of those terms. "Open source" was coined for the explicit purpose of de-emphasizing user freedom (that is, making the idea of FOSS more palatable to companies that were not interested in allowing user freedom). So...
      - misrepresent 10y ago
        Look, he used a bullshit argument. One guy says, (paraphrasing) [open source has many advantages]. The next guy replies by quoting the opensource.org website as though that's the only definition available. A citation for a strawman doesn't make it valid. I have no idea who first put the words "open source" together, and neither do you. I think it's much more likely someone grabbed the term and added their own agenda to it after it was already popular. Regardless, assuming the original intention was as you claim, that doesn't mean everyone who uses that term now shares that view.
        comex 10y ago
        > I have no idea who first put the words "open source" together, and neither do you. I think it's much more likely someone grabbed the term and added their own agenda to it after it was already popular. Perhaps you should read the site in question rather than guessing. https://opensource.org/history https://opensource.org/history > The “open source” label was created at a strategy session held on February 3rd, 1998 in Palo Alto, California, shortly after the announcement of the release of the Netscape source code. [..] The conferees also believed that it would be useful to have a single label that identified this approach and distinguished it from the philosophically- and politically-focused label "free software." Brainstorming for this new label eventually converged on the term "open source", originally suggested by Christine Peterson.
        sedachv 10y ago
        In reply to user misrepresent, who seems to have signed up to HN just to attack RMS: Wrong. "Revision 1.29 February 9 1998 esr Changed ``free software'' to ``open source''. " http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/index.html#catbmain http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral...
jackmott 10y ago
Well, the source being open means that you are free, if only because any mistreatment occurring, you can open up VIM and delete it. You can be sure I would have done that with MS Office and OneDrive in the File menu, or reboots without permission on Windows 10 if I could.
- cyphar 10y ago
  While Free Software and "Open Source" usually refer to the same software, they have different ethical views and have different reasoning behind why software should be free software[1]. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
  - tscs37 10y ago
    Did you perhaps mean "different reasoning behind why software should be open source/free software/free code"?
gaius 10y ago
Well there's free as in speech. And free as in beer. And free as in working for IBM without getting paid.
- lisper 10y ago
  And free as in allowing Facebook or Google to make money off of you by selling your attention as their product.

by cyphar 10y ago

ghaff 10y ago

>Because as far as I'm aware, they don't include "user freedom". I'd largely disagree with that. I see "Open source" described (and describe it myself) as something that has many advantages as a way of developing software and developing communities (users and developers) around that software. But, at the same time, it's absolutely about letting users maintain control and being able to directly influence the direction of development.

cyphar 10y ago
The "open source definition"[1] does not agree with your reading. In fact, that annotations appear to entirely skirt around the issue of freedom. For example, their claimed reasoning for freedom 1 (freedom to modify) is: > The mere ability to read source isn't enough to support independent peer review and rapid evolutionary selection. For rapid evolution to happen, people need to be able to experiment with and redistribute modifications. No mention of user freedoms or why this is important to users, just some nebulous claim that this is related to "evolution" and "experimentation". The entire OSD is written like this, with claims that the 10 completely-arbitrary-with-no-real-logic-behind-them tennants of "open source" will somehow make your software better. How? They don't say. The four software freedoms make sense if you discuss them from the context of freedom, but the 10 "open source" rights don't make sense outside the context of freedom. [1]: https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated
- misrepresent 10y ago
  Do you think one mission statement on one website represents the position for all of us?
  - catern 10y ago
    Clearly this has now devolved into mere semantics, but... if your position emphasizes user freedom, then your position is the "free software" position, not the "open source" position, just as a matter of the historical definitions of those terms. "Open source" was coined for the explicit purpose of de-emphasizing user freedom (that is, making the idea of FOSS more palatable to companies that were not interested in allowing user freedom). So...
    - misrepresent 10y ago
      Look, he used a bullshit argument. One guy says, (paraphrasing) [open source has many advantages]. The next guy replies by quoting the opensource.org website as though that's the only definition available. A citation for a strawman doesn't make it valid. I have no idea who first put the words "open source" together, and neither do you. I think it's much more likely someone grabbed the term and added their own agenda to it after it was already popular. Regardless, assuming the original intention was as you claim, that doesn't mean everyone who uses that term now shares that view.
      - comex 10y ago
        > I have no idea who first put the words "open source" together, and neither do you. I think it's much more likely someone grabbed the term and added their own agenda to it after it was already popular. Perhaps you should read the site in question rather than guessing. https://opensource.org/history https://opensource.org/history > The “open source” label was created at a strategy session held on February 3rd, 1998 in Palo Alto, California, shortly after the announcement of the release of the Netscape source code. [..] The conferees also believed that it would be useful to have a single label that identified this approach and distinguished it from the philosophically- and politically-focused label "free software." Brainstorming for this new label eventually converged on the term "open source", originally suggested by Christine Peterson.
        sedachv 10y ago
        In reply to user misrepresent, who seems to have signed up to HN just to attack RMS: Wrong. "Revision 1.29 February 9 1998 esr Changed ``free software'' to ``open source''. " http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/index.html#catbmain http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral...

jackmott 10y ago

Well, the source being open means that you are free, if only because any mistreatment occurring, you can open up VIM and delete it. You can be sure I would have done that with MS Office and OneDrive in the File menu, or reboots without permission on Windows 10 if I could.

cyphar 10y ago
While Free Software and "Open Source" usually refer to the same software, they have different ethical views and have different reasoning behind why software should be free software[1]. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
- tscs37 10y ago
  Did you perhaps mean "different reasoning behind why software should be open source/free software/free code"?

gaius 10y ago

Well there's free as in speech. And free as in beer. And free as in working for IBM without getting paid.

lisper 10y ago
And free as in allowing Facebook or Google to make money off of you by selling your attention as their product.