3 ms·

> It could be under a very restrictive license; one that doesn’t allow the code to be redistributed or used by anyone in any project. Open source means allowin

> It could be under a very restrictive license; one that doesn’t allow the code to be redistributed or used by anyone in any project. Open source means allowing the usage of code. Putting code under a license that does not allow any kind of usage is definitely not open source. And then why should Apple allow people to view their proprietary code when it has no intention to allow 3rd party usage? Chinese firms are already aping Apple's design. Everyone knows what they will do if they can see all the code.

ancarda 9y ago
You’re confusing open source with free software. You definitely can have open source code that you can’t use (legally). Taking the code off GitHub and using it without Apple’s permission would be theft. Open Source only means the code is available to be seen by the general public. Free Software means you have specific rights, like the right to view, modify, and distribute the code. A possible license could be APSL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Public_Source_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Public_Source_License
- ghaff 9y ago
  Code that can be viewed but not used would not be in compliance of an OSI-approved license. I suppose you can call anything open source but OSI is the arbiter in the minds of most.
  - atonse 9y ago
    Sure. If you use an OSI license maybe. But I seriously doubt they can stop me from using the phrase open source if my code’s source is open.
    - rileymat2 9y ago
      Obviously thay cannot stop you from misusing a term. I used to believe like you that the definition was more broad like you indicated. But the people who coined it had a narrower free software defintion in mind. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software
      - ryanlol 9y ago
        The fight over the meaning of "Open source" was lost by OSI almost two decades ago. Here's a 2002 version of their website essentially admitting as much: https://web.archive.org/web/20021001164015/http://www.opensource.org/docs/history.php https://web.archive.org/web/20021001164015/http://www.openso... >The OSI Certified mark is OSI's way of certifying that the license under which the software is distributed conforms to the OSD; the generic term "Open Source" cannot provide that assurance, but we still encourage use of the term "Open Source" to mean conformance to the OSD.
    - ghaff 9y ago
      As I wrote, no one would likely try to legally prevent you from calling any proprietary license open source if you want to. It just won’t actually be open source license in the minds of most if it doesn’t comply anwith the OSI guidelines
      - tzs 9y ago
        What about code that complies with the OSI guidelines, but does not use an OSI-approved license? Would you say that is open source?
        ghaff 9y ago
        Not up to me to say what is open source. If something was compliant with OSI guidelines, it’s probably fair to call it open source. Also probably pretty ill-advised to have a one-off license no one else uses.
- w0de0 9y ago
  Succinctly: free as in speech, not as in beer.

ancarda 9y ago

You’re confusing open source with free software. You definitely can have open source code that you can’t use (legally). Taking the code off GitHub and using it without Apple’s permission would be theft. Open Source only means the code is available to be seen by the general public. Free Software means you have specific rights, like the right to view, modify, and distribute the code. A possible license could be APSL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Public_Source_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Public_Source_License

ghaff 9y ago
Code that can be viewed but not used would not be in compliance of an OSI-approved license. I suppose you can call anything open source but OSI is the arbiter in the minds of most.
- atonse 9y ago
  Sure. If you use an OSI license maybe. But I seriously doubt they can stop me from using the phrase open source if my code’s source is open.
  - rileymat2 9y ago
    Obviously thay cannot stop you from misusing a term. I used to believe like you that the definition was more broad like you indicated. But the people who coined it had a narrower free software defintion in mind. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software
    - ryanlol 9y ago
      The fight over the meaning of "Open source" was lost by OSI almost two decades ago. Here's a 2002 version of their website essentially admitting as much: https://web.archive.org/web/20021001164015/http://www.opensource.org/docs/history.php https://web.archive.org/web/20021001164015/http://www.openso... >The OSI Certified mark is OSI's way of certifying that the license under which the software is distributed conforms to the OSD; the generic term "Open Source" cannot provide that assurance, but we still encourage use of the term "Open Source" to mean conformance to the OSD.
  - ghaff 9y ago
    As I wrote, no one would likely try to legally prevent you from calling any proprietary license open source if you want to. It just won’t actually be open source license in the minds of most if it doesn’t comply anwith the OSI guidelines
    - tzs 9y ago
      What about code that complies with the OSI guidelines, but does not use an OSI-approved license? Would you say that is open source?
      - ghaff 9y ago
        Not up to me to say what is open source. If something was compliant with OSI guidelines, it’s probably fair to call it open source. Also probably pretty ill-advised to have a one-off license no one else uses.
w0de0 9y ago
Succinctly: free as in speech, not as in beer.