3 ms·

> The source is provided, yes, but that doesn't make it open source. For me it's actually the definition of open source, having the sources in the open. After

> The source is provided, yes, but that doesn't make it open source. For me it's actually the definition of open source, having the sources in the open. After you can have more or less restrictive licenses.

jay-anderson 8y ago
The code for windows has been leaked and people could get the source. Sometimes companies have agreements for viewing the source of software they produce. These are two examples where the source code is visible, but this alone does not make them open source. There must be other attributes beyond just being able to see the source code.
dtech 8y ago
You're not using a useful definition. If I give you some source code, with the license that you cannot run the software, modify the code or copy or use the code in any way, it follows your definition and is still useless.
the_af 8y ago
> For me it's actually the definition of open source, having the sources in the open. But that's not actually the most commonly accepted definition of open source. It means something else, as widely understood by the software community.
- plopz 8y ago
  My definition is the same as his. Is there a poll or survey somewhere that determined what the commonly accepted definition was?
  - gnud 8y ago
    Well, there's this thing called the OSI [1], and they have this definition that's been around for a while. From their website: > The “open source” label was created at a strategy session held on February 3rd, 1998 in Palo Alto, California. That same month, the OSI was founded. 1: https://opensource.org/ https://opensource.org/
  - the_af 8y ago
    Well, besides OSI's definition -- which I understand is being questioned in this comments section, so I suppose mentioning it is begging the question -- most of the bibliography and articles out there use "open source" in the sense I mentioned. Microsoft was also aware of the accepted meaning, which is why they introduced their "Shared Source Initiative" back in the old days (note how deviously careful they were about the naming).
    - plopz 8y ago
      Honestly, this comment section is the first time I've heard about the OSI, I guess whenever I read articles that use "open source" I've assumed a definition that may not be technically correct. I would hazard a guess that my definition is probably more widely held but that could just be my personal bias.

jay-anderson 8y ago

The code for windows has been leaked and people could get the source. Sometimes companies have agreements for viewing the source of software they produce. These are two examples where the source code is visible, but this alone does not make them open source. There must be other attributes beyond just being able to see the source code.

dtech 8y ago

You're not using a useful definition. If I give you some source code, with the license that you cannot run the software, modify the code or copy or use the code in any way, it follows your definition and is still useless.

the_af 8y ago

> For me it's actually the definition of open source, having the sources in the open. But that's not actually the most commonly accepted definition of open source. It means something else, as widely understood by the software community.

plopz 8y ago
My definition is the same as his. Is there a poll or survey somewhere that determined what the commonly accepted definition was?
- gnud 8y ago
  Well, there's this thing called the OSI [1], and they have this definition that's been around for a while. From their website: > The “open source” label was created at a strategy session held on February 3rd, 1998 in Palo Alto, California. That same month, the OSI was founded. 1: https://opensource.org/ https://opensource.org/
- the_af 8y ago
  Well, besides OSI's definition -- which I understand is being questioned in this comments section, so I suppose mentioning it is begging the question -- most of the bibliography and articles out there use "open source" in the sense I mentioned. Microsoft was also aware of the accepted meaning, which is why they introduced their "Shared Source Initiative" back in the old days (note how deviously careful they were about the naming).
  - plopz 8y ago
    Honestly, this comment section is the first time I've heard about the OSI, I guess whenever I read articles that use "open source" I've assumed a definition that may not be technically correct. I would hazard a guess that my definition is probably more widely held but that could just be my personal bias.