4 ms·

So it's not Open Source™, as defined by The Open Source Initiative. I'll still call it open source as there is source in the open that doesn't seem leaked malic

by hoseja 7y ago

So it's not Open Source™, as defined by The Open Source Initiative. I'll still call it open source as there is source in the open that doesn't seem leaked maliciously.

CobrastanJorji 7y ago
Calling it that could be parsed in a way that would be technically true, but it would be intentionally obtuse, in the same way that a cowboy who rides off on a horse named Tuesday could be described as having "left on Tuesday," or a malware author fond of white fedoras might be described as a "white hat hacker." "Open source" has been understood to mean "freely redistributable and modifiable" source for a couple of decades now, and if you used it to mean something else without clarifying, you should expect that they will misunderstand you.
- tingletech 7y ago
  > "Open source" has been understood to mean "freely redistributable and modifiable" source for a couple of decades now I don't know if this is true universally, or only in certain communities.
  - jchw 7y ago
    Only certain communities. Such as... the general open source community. And maybe even software developers in general. I can definitely see this being misunderstood by end users or others because licensing and the related terminology is just plain confusing, but as long as I can remember it was very clear that there's a difference between shared source, 'available' source, and open source. The same exact arguments can be made about free software, only worse because colloquially users have traditionally confused it with the term freeware.
    - kragen 7y ago
      Right, one of the strong arguments in favor of the term was that “open source” had no pre-existing meaning to constantly struggle against. Thus my frustration with the persistent confusion, where by “confusion” I mean “con men falsely claiming that their software is open-source in order to free-ride on the goodwill the open-source community has earned through decades of hard work and persistence against impossible odds in order to guarantee basic human rights to everyone in an increasingly computer-mediated world.”
ramses0 7y ago
No, it is “source available”. It’s the difference between UFC and MMA, or declaring that addition == subtraction (if only you negate all the terms). If you don’t use the term correctly, then you’re muddying the waters. Source Available - unknown license Free Software - no cost, may or may not have source available Open Source - OSI approved, there exists an automatic license to at least use or redistribute the code unmodified
- caf 7y ago
  Free Software doesn't mean no cost, it means software where "the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software". Two commonly used definitions are the Debian Free Sotware Guidelines (https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines) and the FSF's Free Software Definition (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html).
  - jfk13 7y ago
    Nicely demonstrating that just as "open source" is open to multiple interpretations, so is "free software". Within certain communities, there are widely-accepted definitions (from OSI, FSF, Debian, etc) but not everyone automatically understands the terms according to these definitions.
    - vageli 7y ago
      > Nicely demonstrating that just as "open source" is open to multiple interpretations, so is "free software". Within certain communities, there are widely-accepted definitions (from OSI, FSF, Debian, etc) but not everyone automatically understands the terms according to these definitions. At least for "free", it (used to be?) very common to add an "as in" after, like "free as in beer" (you don't have to pay) or "free as in speech" (you can do what you want with it).
    - kragen 7y ago
      Those three definitions are so similar that when they disagree it's usually because someone is misinterpreting something. The key disagreements between Debian and the FSF are about invariant sections in documentation and the mere existence of Debian’s non-free category, which it explicitly doesn't claim is free software.
nguoi 7y ago
>source in the open That's not a normal sentence construction though, it sounds tortured. You may be able to see through my windows into my home: that doesn't mean my home is open to you.

by hoseja 7y ago

So it's not Open Source™, as defined by The Open Source Initiative. I'll still call it open source as there is source in the open that doesn't seem leaked maliciously.

CobrastanJorji 7y ago

Calling it that could be parsed in a way that would be technically true, but it would be intentionally obtuse, in the same way that a cowboy who rides off on a horse named Tuesday could be described as having "left on Tuesday," or a malware author fond of white fedoras might be described as a "white hat hacker." "Open source" has been understood to mean "freely redistributable and modifiable" source for a couple of decades now, and if you used it to mean something else without clarifying, you should expect that they will misunderstand you.

tingletech 7y ago
> "Open source" has been understood to mean "freely redistributable and modifiable" source for a couple of decades now I don't know if this is true universally, or only in certain communities.
- jchw 7y ago
  Only certain communities. Such as... the general open source community. And maybe even software developers in general. I can definitely see this being misunderstood by end users or others because licensing and the related terminology is just plain confusing, but as long as I can remember it was very clear that there's a difference between shared source, 'available' source, and open source. The same exact arguments can be made about free software, only worse because colloquially users have traditionally confused it with the term freeware.
  - kragen 7y ago
    Right, one of the strong arguments in favor of the term was that “open source” had no pre-existing meaning to constantly struggle against. Thus my frustration with the persistent confusion, where by “confusion” I mean “con men falsely claiming that their software is open-source in order to free-ride on the goodwill the open-source community has earned through decades of hard work and persistence against impossible odds in order to guarantee basic human rights to everyone in an increasingly computer-mediated world.”

ramses0 7y ago

No, it is “source available”. It’s the difference between UFC and MMA, or declaring that addition == subtraction (if only you negate all the terms). If you don’t use the term correctly, then you’re muddying the waters. Source Available - unknown license Free Software - no cost, may or may not have source available Open Source - OSI approved, there exists an automatic license to at least use or redistribute the code unmodified

caf 7y ago
Free Software doesn't mean no cost, it means software where "the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software". Two commonly used definitions are the Debian Free Sotware Guidelines (https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines) and the FSF's Free Software Definition (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html).
- jfk13 7y ago
  Nicely demonstrating that just as "open source" is open to multiple interpretations, so is "free software". Within certain communities, there are widely-accepted definitions (from OSI, FSF, Debian, etc) but not everyone automatically understands the terms according to these definitions.
  - vageli 7y ago
    > Nicely demonstrating that just as "open source" is open to multiple interpretations, so is "free software". Within certain communities, there are widely-accepted definitions (from OSI, FSF, Debian, etc) but not everyone automatically understands the terms according to these definitions. At least for "free", it (used to be?) very common to add an "as in" after, like "free as in beer" (you don't have to pay) or "free as in speech" (you can do what you want with it).
  - kragen 7y ago
    Those three definitions are so similar that when they disagree it's usually because someone is misinterpreting something. The key disagreements between Debian and the FSF are about invariant sections in documentation and the mere existence of Debian’s non-free category, which it explicitly doesn't claim is free software.

nguoi 7y ago

>source in the open That's not a normal sentence construction though, it sounds tortured. You may be able to see through my windows into my home: that doesn't mean my home is open to you.