6 ms·

Open source does not mean you are free to distribute the code, necessarily. It literally just means that the code is available for inspection. Paid-for open sou

Open source does not mean you are free to distribute the code, necessarily. It literally just means that the code is available for inspection. Paid-for open source software isn't a new thing. You're thinking of _free_ open source software. While I'm not a huge FOSS-head, there is a distinct difference between "_free_ and open source" and just "open source". It's all in the licensing. I could, in theory, write a license that says, basically, you can't distribute my source code, but you can look at it, compile it, and even alter it to fit your needs. In fact, a lot of licenses on older software projects allowed for exactly that. I could also release a license that says that you can only redistribute my code if you haven't purchased it, but if you have purchased it, you're not allowed to redistribute it. Pointless? Yeah, probably. But that's still a valid license. Anything goes, as long as you can come up with the proper legalese to put in the license. EDIT: I get it, some people support OSI's definitions, some FSF's, and apparently sharing the opinion of one has angered the supporters of the other. A lot of this is subjective, and I know that. I'd appreciate it if you discussed and voted accordingly.

CrystalGamma 9y ago
If you can look at, but not redistribute, freely, it is called 'shared source'. Open Source really is about free redistribution. And the difference to Free Software is mostly about the stance on community and lock-in.
- bfred_it 9y ago
  "Open source" is very generic, it literally just means "Not closed/private source." Nothing else about redistribution and restrictions is implied. For that there are specific licenses, which the article didn't mention.
  - Vendan 9y ago
    It's not open source unless it's an open source license, and it's not an open source license unless it meets https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated. You are referring to "source available". Please stop conflating the two.
    - b4ux1t3 9y ago
      Can you blame us? This is largely a subjective matter, and the different organizations who talk about this kind of thing have often-conflicting ideologies about how all this works. When I hear "open source", I don't know which camp the speaker is sitting in. It's perfectly reasonable to get mixed up sometimes.
      - cat199 9y ago
        While it is a subjective matter when looking from the outside, the OSI consortium did a pretty good job of bringing in all of the various groups conventionally referred to as 'open source' and getting the various definitions pinned down in a way that seems to accurately reflect the broad spectrum of possibilities, even to the point that non-open-source companies use their definitions. While I agree one can still certainly debate the legitimacy of this situation if one so desires, it's pretty much consensus 'within the literature' that the OSI definitions 'are correct' at this pont..
      - asfdsfggtfd 9y ago
        > This is largely a subjective matter, It just isn't subjective. "Open Source" is a technical term with a clear well understood meaning.
        b4ux1t3 9y ago
        It is a technical term defined by a bunch of people who got together and agreed that their opinions (however educated they may be) are more correct than other people's. That's extremely subjective, and not universally accepted. Technical terms have definitions that transcend the opinions of people who use them. When I say "byte", everyone knows exactly what I mean, as it's a unit of measurement. When I say "agile", it could mean any number of different things, depending on context. When people say "open source", the thought that comes to a lot of people's minds is simply "I can see the _source_ code, because it's out in the _open_." It's subjective, and, frankly, annoying. It shouldn't matter how something is licensed, because the most important aspect of software is whether or not it provides value and helps me do my job. Bickering about semantics doesn't get work done.
- b4ux1t3 9y ago
  I'm just going off of what I hear vocal "FOSS" advocates screaming at me on online forums. They tell anyone and everyone, loudly, that licenses are terrible, but at least some are decent, and that if I can't do what I want, it's not free software, even if it's open source. Turns out opensource.org disagrees with them. But it doesn't seem like FSF (or rather, RMS, and the FSF by proxy) agrees[1]. In the end, I don't really have a horse in this race. I just write code. I don't care how my company's legal department chooses to protect it. Frankly, I find it kind of tiresome that there's such a big argument over this stuff. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
  - mikegerwitz 9y ago
    Here's an illustration: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-open-overlap.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-open-overlap.en.html I manually went through each of the OSI licenses and compared them to the FSF's list a while back, and there were only a couple differences. I don't have time to dig them up right now, but they're largely the same. We reject the term "open source" not because of the licensing, but because of the philosophy: it was created to explicitly ignore the ethical concerns (users' freedoms) and focus instead on a development methodology.
geocar 9y ago
> Open source does not mean you are free to distribute the code, necessarily The Open Source Definition[1] has defined the term "open source" since the late 1990s to mean exactly this. The term "Open" refers to open-membership (for contributions), and not transparency. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition > I could, in theory, write a license that says, basically, you can't distribute my source code, but you can look at it, compile it, and even alter it to fit your needs. You can, but this doesn't meet the Open Source Definition, so you might be infringing on their trademark if you were to call that an Open Source License.
asfdsfggtfd 9y ago
This post is almost completely wrong. You can indeed do what you like in the license (within the bounds of the law) but if it doesn't meet the OSI definition it is not Open Source.
- matz1 9y ago
  No, when hear the term open source the first thing that come in mind is that the source is readable, thats it nothing else is implied. That being said, oher entities/organization might have their own definition. I'm sure there are many people who use the term open source like mine.
  - factorialboy 9y ago
    When I first hear the term bananas the first thing that comes to my mind is apples. :-)
    - matz1 9y ago
      I'm not sure many people use the term like that.
  - b4ux1t3 9y ago
    You're not alone. I'm of the mind that it doesn't matter what the license, state of the source, or whatever, I'm here to get things done, not quibble over trivialities and semantics. When I can see the source for something, I call it open source. If the OSI has a problem with that, I invite them to explain to me how my definition affects their goals in any way, shape, or form. I like the OSI. I use a lot of stuff that they endorse. My 3D printer is OSI certified (or whatever the proper terminology is). But I use my printer to solve problems, and it being open or closed source doesn't really matter, so long as it helps me solve problems. I like the FSF. I use a lot of stuff that they endorse. One of the operating systems I use is FSF certified (or whatever the proper terminology is). But I use this operating system to solve problems, and it being open or closed source doesn't really matter, as long as it helps me solve problems. I like Microsoft. I use a lot of stuff that they make. One of the operating systems I use. . .you get the idea.
pgeorgi 9y ago
> While I'm not a huge FOSS-head, there is a distinct difference between "_free_ and open source" and just "open source". It's all in the licensing "Free Software" and "Open Source" mean pretty much the same as far as the practices, motions and licenses are concerned (but people insist there are huge differences in terms of philosophy). "Free and Open Source Software" is just a new-ish term that includes either team to stop the whining. "Open Source" was a mostly unused term in the software licensing field before 1998 or the people at OSI who drafted the Open Source Definition likely would have gone for something else. "Shared source" was introduced by Microsoft a couple years later and is a pretty descriptive term for those less liberal licenses (where sharing code happens outside the criteria of the OSD). Why not just go with that instead of arguing why people should use a term to mean something different? There was an effort to do just that, by Microsoft, to muddy the waters, before they settled on "shared source", which might be why you get those harsh responses.

CrystalGamma 9y ago

If you can look at, but not redistribute, freely, it is called 'shared source'. Open Source really is about free redistribution. And the difference to Free Software is mostly about the stance on community and lock-in.

bfred_it 9y ago
"Open source" is very generic, it literally just means "Not closed/private source." Nothing else about redistribution and restrictions is implied. For that there are specific licenses, which the article didn't mention.
- Vendan 9y ago
  It's not open source unless it's an open source license, and it's not an open source license unless it meets https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated. You are referring to "source available". Please stop conflating the two.
  - b4ux1t3 9y ago
    Can you blame us? This is largely a subjective matter, and the different organizations who talk about this kind of thing have often-conflicting ideologies about how all this works. When I hear "open source", I don't know which camp the speaker is sitting in. It's perfectly reasonable to get mixed up sometimes.
    - cat199 9y ago
      While it is a subjective matter when looking from the outside, the OSI consortium did a pretty good job of bringing in all of the various groups conventionally referred to as 'open source' and getting the various definitions pinned down in a way that seems to accurately reflect the broad spectrum of possibilities, even to the point that non-open-source companies use their definitions. While I agree one can still certainly debate the legitimacy of this situation if one so desires, it's pretty much consensus 'within the literature' that the OSI definitions 'are correct' at this pont..
    - asfdsfggtfd 9y ago
      > This is largely a subjective matter, It just isn't subjective. "Open Source" is a technical term with a clear well understood meaning.
      - b4ux1t3 9y ago
        It is a technical term defined by a bunch of people who got together and agreed that their opinions (however educated they may be) are more correct than other people's. That's extremely subjective, and not universally accepted. Technical terms have definitions that transcend the opinions of people who use them. When I say "byte", everyone knows exactly what I mean, as it's a unit of measurement. When I say "agile", it could mean any number of different things, depending on context. When people say "open source", the thought that comes to a lot of people's minds is simply "I can see the _source_ code, because it's out in the _open_." It's subjective, and, frankly, annoying. It shouldn't matter how something is licensed, because the most important aspect of software is whether or not it provides value and helps me do my job. Bickering about semantics doesn't get work done.
b4ux1t3 9y ago
I'm just going off of what I hear vocal "FOSS" advocates screaming at me on online forums. They tell anyone and everyone, loudly, that licenses are terrible, but at least some are decent, and that if I can't do what I want, it's not free software, even if it's open source. Turns out opensource.org disagrees with them. But it doesn't seem like FSF (or rather, RMS, and the FSF by proxy) agrees[1]. In the end, I don't really have a horse in this race. I just write code. I don't care how my company's legal department chooses to protect it. Frankly, I find it kind of tiresome that there's such a big argument over this stuff. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
- mikegerwitz 9y ago
  Here's an illustration: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-open-overlap.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-open-overlap.en.html I manually went through each of the OSI licenses and compared them to the FSF's list a while back, and there were only a couple differences. I don't have time to dig them up right now, but they're largely the same. We reject the term "open source" not because of the licensing, but because of the philosophy: it was created to explicitly ignore the ethical concerns (users' freedoms) and focus instead on a development methodology.

geocar 9y ago

> Open source does not mean you are free to distribute the code, necessarily The Open Source Definition[1] has defined the term "open source" since the late 1990s to mean exactly this. The term "Open" refers to open-membership (for contributions), and not transparency. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition > I could, in theory, write a license that says, basically, you can't distribute my source code, but you can look at it, compile it, and even alter it to fit your needs. You can, but this doesn't meet the Open Source Definition, so you might be infringing on their trademark if you were to call that an Open Source License.

asfdsfggtfd 9y ago

This post is almost completely wrong. You can indeed do what you like in the license (within the bounds of the law) but if it doesn't meet the OSI definition it is not Open Source.

matz1 9y ago
No, when hear the term open source the first thing that come in mind is that the source is readable, thats it nothing else is implied. That being said, oher entities/organization might have their own definition. I'm sure there are many people who use the term open source like mine.
- factorialboy 9y ago
  When I first hear the term bananas the first thing that comes to my mind is apples. :-)
  - matz1 9y ago
    I'm not sure many people use the term like that.
- b4ux1t3 9y ago
  You're not alone. I'm of the mind that it doesn't matter what the license, state of the source, or whatever, I'm here to get things done, not quibble over trivialities and semantics. When I can see the source for something, I call it open source. If the OSI has a problem with that, I invite them to explain to me how my definition affects their goals in any way, shape, or form. I like the OSI. I use a lot of stuff that they endorse. My 3D printer is OSI certified (or whatever the proper terminology is). But I use my printer to solve problems, and it being open or closed source doesn't really matter, so long as it helps me solve problems. I like the FSF. I use a lot of stuff that they endorse. One of the operating systems I use is FSF certified (or whatever the proper terminology is). But I use this operating system to solve problems, and it being open or closed source doesn't really matter, as long as it helps me solve problems. I like Microsoft. I use a lot of stuff that they make. One of the operating systems I use. . .you get the idea.

pgeorgi 9y ago

> While I'm not a huge FOSS-head, there is a distinct difference between "_free_ and open source" and just "open source". It's all in the licensing "Free Software" and "Open Source" mean pretty much the same as far as the practices, motions and licenses are concerned (but people insist there are huge differences in terms of philosophy). "Free and Open Source Software" is just a new-ish term that includes either team to stop the whining. "Open Source" was a mostly unused term in the software licensing field before 1998 or the people at OSI who drafted the Open Source Definition likely would have gone for something else. "Shared source" was introduced by Microsoft a couple years later and is a pretty descriptive term for those less liberal licenses (where sharing code happens outside the criteria of the OSD). Why not just go with that instead of arguing why people should use a term to mean something different? There was an effort to do just that, by Microsoft, to muddy the waters, before they settled on "shared source", which might be why you get those harsh responses.