4 ms·

> I guess my definition of open source... Then you've misunderstood what "open source" means. The term "open source" was invented specifically to describe sof

by gwd 7y ago

> I guess my definition of open source... Then you've misunderstood what "open source" means. The term "open source" was invented specifically to describe software with the following properties (among others) [1]: ~~~ 1. Free Redistribution The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. [...] 3. Derived Works The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. ~~~ Any software which doesn't meet those criteria isn't open-source. [1] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd (edit: formatting)

bryanrasmussen 7y ago
there's a bunch of stuff on HN currently about not believing everything you're told and fake memories and such, but anyway I could swear that this has not always been the exact definition - that this definition, and the referenced site, have sort of taken over the definition and applied an extreme version of the term. I believe this because I also believe there used to be two terms open source, and free, that these were distinct, and that all things that were open source were not necessarily free or vice versa. But it seems to me with the above definition that all things which are open source must then be free although all things that are free still do not need to be open source. on edit: clarified I was referring to HN in first use of the term "site"
- pizza234 7y ago
  > I could swear that this has not always been the exact definition Following the "paper trail", the chronology is: 1. the "Open Source Definition", last modification in 2007, is based on "The Debian Free Software Guidelines", I suppose v1.1 2. the "Debian Free Software Guidelines" v1.1 was ratified in 2004, and is based on v1.0 3. the "Debian Free Software Guidelines" v1.0 was ratified in 1997 so ultimately, in strict terms (but that's arguable), the "Open Source Definition" is newer.
  - xtiansimon 7y ago
    I’m confused. I believed the story of Open Source software begins in the 50s and 60s when early OS was essentially free, and the beasts software ran on was the profit center. The culture for free open source software (and its benefits) was prevalent. But by the 70s companies we’re changing their attitude about this IP. I’m a reaction to increased restrictions Richard Stallman founded the GNU project in 1983. Is there an Other World theory where this was not the case? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-source_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-sourc...
    - bryanrasmussen 7y ago
      The question is whether Open Source has always been synonymous with free, I do not believe it has I just believe it has historically been strongly correlated but I could be wrong. However using the OSI as evidence of the original meaning of the term doesn't strike me as at all authoritative, especially as the OSI has all sorts of conditions that I do not believe were in any original definition of the term. as I am not a prescriptivist in language as a general rule it may be that I should alter my usage of the term to follow OSI usage, but then I feel that a useful term is needed for software where you can inspect the source as needed - perhaps inspectable source.
      - gwd 7y ago
        > I feel that a useful term is needed for software where you can inspect the source as needed - perhaps inspectable source. People have used the term 'source-available': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software
    - pizza234 7y ago
      As far as I understand, the parent's doubt is about the _definition_ of "open source": > I could swear that this has not always been the exact definition > I believe this because I also believe there used to be two terms open source, and free, that these were distinct, and that all things that were open source were not necessarily free or vice versa. In this perspective, the history, as reported, matches: originally, there was a "free software" concept and movement (the formal definition was given in 1986), then, in 1998, the "open source" term was coined. Based on Stallman's critic to the Open Source ideas (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....): > For example, “Open Watcom” is nonfree because its license does not allow making a modified version and using it privately. The parent's doubt has verified grounds. However, there's confusion, because it seems that the "Open Source Definition" is _now_ closer to "Free software" than it was when Stallman expressed his opinion: by that time, Open Watcom qualified as "Open source", but nowadays, based on the "Open Source Definition", it wouldn't.
- gwd 7y ago
  > I believe this because I also believe there used to be two terms open source, and free, that these were distinct, and that all things that were open source were not necessarily free or vice versa. There are certainly ideological differences between the two; but I think it's primarily in terms of focus. The FSF primarily aims at promoting "software freedom" as an end in itself; RMS claims that it is unethical to give people software but prevent them from sharing or modifying it. As such, they much prefer to use copyright law to promote "software freedom", by things like the GPL and AGPL. But (as I understand it), since more permissive licenses like BSD or MIT licenses do allow the "four freedoms", they consider them "free software" (albeit second-class, because unlike copyleft licenses, they don't fight to keep derivatives "free"). "Open source" was meant to focus more on the benefits of the open, collaborative software development model, without denigrating proprietary software; and, in particular, to be more palatable to large companies. As such, permissive licenses (BSD, MIT, Apache, &c) are considered just as valid as copyleft licenses (GPL, APL, &c). But saying, "You're not allowed to run a service using our software because it might compete with us" is Right Out.

by gwd 7y ago

bryanrasmussen 7y ago

there's a bunch of stuff on HN currently about not believing everything you're told and fake memories and such, but anyway I could swear that this has not always been the exact definition - that this definition, and the referenced site, have sort of taken over the definition and applied an extreme version of the term. I believe this because I also believe there used to be two terms open source, and free, that these were distinct, and that all things that were open source were not necessarily free or vice versa. But it seems to me with the above definition that all things which are open source must then be free although all things that are free still do not need to be open source. on edit: clarified I was referring to HN in first use of the term "site"

pizza234 7y ago
> I could swear that this has not always been the exact definition Following the "paper trail", the chronology is: 1. the "Open Source Definition", last modification in 2007, is based on "The Debian Free Software Guidelines", I suppose v1.1 2. the "Debian Free Software Guidelines" v1.1 was ratified in 2004, and is based on v1.0 3. the "Debian Free Software Guidelines" v1.0 was ratified in 1997 so ultimately, in strict terms (but that's arguable), the "Open Source Definition" is newer.
- xtiansimon 7y ago
  I’m confused. I believed the story of Open Source software begins in the 50s and 60s when early OS was essentially free, and the beasts software ran on was the profit center. The culture for free open source software (and its benefits) was prevalent. But by the 70s companies we’re changing their attitude about this IP. I’m a reaction to increased restrictions Richard Stallman founded the GNU project in 1983. Is there an Other World theory where this was not the case? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-source_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-sourc...
  - bryanrasmussen 7y ago
    The question is whether Open Source has always been synonymous with free, I do not believe it has I just believe it has historically been strongly correlated but I could be wrong. However using the OSI as evidence of the original meaning of the term doesn't strike me as at all authoritative, especially as the OSI has all sorts of conditions that I do not believe were in any original definition of the term. as I am not a prescriptivist in language as a general rule it may be that I should alter my usage of the term to follow OSI usage, but then I feel that a useful term is needed for software where you can inspect the source as needed - perhaps inspectable source.
    - gwd 7y ago
      > I feel that a useful term is needed for software where you can inspect the source as needed - perhaps inspectable source. People have used the term 'source-available': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software
  - pizza234 7y ago
    As far as I understand, the parent's doubt is about the _definition_ of "open source": > I could swear that this has not always been the exact definition > I believe this because I also believe there used to be two terms open source, and free, that these were distinct, and that all things that were open source were not necessarily free or vice versa. In this perspective, the history, as reported, matches: originally, there was a "free software" concept and movement (the formal definition was given in 1986), then, in 1998, the "open source" term was coined. Based on Stallman's critic to the Open Source ideas (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....): > For example, “Open Watcom” is nonfree because its license does not allow making a modified version and using it privately. The parent's doubt has verified grounds. However, there's confusion, because it seems that the "Open Source Definition" is _now_ closer to "Free software" than it was when Stallman expressed his opinion: by that time, Open Watcom qualified as "Open source", but nowadays, based on the "Open Source Definition", it wouldn't.
gwd 7y ago
> I believe this because I also believe there used to be two terms open source, and free, that these were distinct, and that all things that were open source were not necessarily free or vice versa. There are certainly ideological differences between the two; but I think it's primarily in terms of focus. The FSF primarily aims at promoting "software freedom" as an end in itself; RMS claims that it is unethical to give people software but prevent them from sharing or modifying it. As such, they much prefer to use copyright law to promote "software freedom", by things like the GPL and AGPL. But (as I understand it), since more permissive licenses like BSD or MIT licenses do allow the "four freedoms", they consider them "free software" (albeit second-class, because unlike copyleft licenses, they don't fight to keep derivatives "free"). "Open source" was meant to focus more on the benefits of the open, collaborative software development model, without denigrating proprietary software; and, in particular, to be more palatable to large companies. As such, permissive licenses (BSD, MIT, Apache, &c) are considered just as valid as copyleft licenses (GPL, APL, &c). But saying, "You're not allowed to run a service using our software because it might compete with us" is Right Out.