4 ms·

> Conversely, Richard Stallman argues the obvious meaning of term "open source" is that the source code is public/accessible for inspection, without necessarily

by zaat 7y ago

> Conversely, Richard Stallman argues the obvious meaning of term "open source" is that the source code is public/accessible for inspection, without necessarily any other rights granted, although the proponents of the term say the conditions in the Open Source Definition must be fulfilled. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source#%22Open%22_versus_%22free%22_versus_%22free_and_open%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source#%22Open%22_versus_...

EvanAnderson 7y ago
I fall into the "...conditions in the Open Source Definition..." camp. I think many "source available" projects ride on the coattails of the goodwill associated with the term "Open Source".
- zaat 7y ago
  You can fall to whatever side you wish, but calling someone disingenuous for siding otherwise does not show much of, indeed, goodwill, nor is it just.
  - tssva 7y ago
    The capitalization of "Open Source" makes it a proper noun or adjective which means it refers to a specific thing. This is why the Open Source Initiative (OSI) always uses "Open Source". You know they are referring to open source as defined by them. "open source" would be referring to the general concept which depending on interpretation could include shared source. In my view using the proper vs common version of "open source" places this into a disingenuous attempt to be associated with open source as defined by the OSI.
    - zaat 7y ago
      In my view responding immediately with clear clarification of the degree of the code openness, right under the title of the website, places this into this as something which isn't remotely disingenuous. In my view seeing this as disingenuous is, quit frankly, odd. It is also goes against the site comment's guideline (as well as general sane rule) of: Assume good faith.
      - EvanAnderson 7y ago
        Here's a concrete example of the connotation in action: I wouldn't have clicked thru to the comments or the project's site if the title of this posting was "Source-Available Alternative for Zapier". I saw "Open Source" and assumed, as I suspect many people did, that it was talking about the Open Source Initiative definition of Open Source. Intended or not, those two words carry a connotation for a lot of people. I'd rather not see that connotation watered-down, either.
        roblabla 7y ago
        Then only click on links that say "Free Software". OSI redefined "Open Source" post-facto, and it has always been somewhat ambiguous. Free Software has always been unambiguously "Free as in Freedom Software".
yeahforsureman 7y ago
I wouldn't pay much attention to such statement knowing the historical background. Stallman was and is a proponent of his own terminology, i.e. "free software", and the related definition which actually isn't that different (hence the catch-all "FLOSS"). Anyway, it's stupid to argue over this. The FAQ on the Commons Clause site itself, reflecting the intention and thinking of the drafter and the initiatiors, specifically states the license is "source-available", not "open source". When talking about open source as a form of licensing as opposed to e.g. software development culture/methodology, the distinction here is quite widely accepted and non-contentious.

by zaat 7y ago

EvanAnderson 7y ago

I fall into the "...conditions in the Open Source Definition..." camp. I think many "source available" projects ride on the coattails of the goodwill associated with the term "Open Source".

zaat 7y ago
You can fall to whatever side you wish, but calling someone disingenuous for siding otherwise does not show much of, indeed, goodwill, nor is it just.
- tssva 7y ago
  The capitalization of "Open Source" makes it a proper noun or adjective which means it refers to a specific thing. This is why the Open Source Initiative (OSI) always uses "Open Source". You know they are referring to open source as defined by them. "open source" would be referring to the general concept which depending on interpretation could include shared source. In my view using the proper vs common version of "open source" places this into a disingenuous attempt to be associated with open source as defined by the OSI.
  - zaat 7y ago
    In my view responding immediately with clear clarification of the degree of the code openness, right under the title of the website, places this into this as something which isn't remotely disingenuous. In my view seeing this as disingenuous is, quit frankly, odd. It is also goes against the site comment's guideline (as well as general sane rule) of: Assume good faith.
    - EvanAnderson 7y ago
      Here's a concrete example of the connotation in action: I wouldn't have clicked thru to the comments or the project's site if the title of this posting was "Source-Available Alternative for Zapier". I saw "Open Source" and assumed, as I suspect many people did, that it was talking about the Open Source Initiative definition of Open Source. Intended or not, those two words carry a connotation for a lot of people. I'd rather not see that connotation watered-down, either.
      - roblabla 7y ago
        Then only click on links that say "Free Software". OSI redefined "Open Source" post-facto, and it has always been somewhat ambiguous. Free Software has always been unambiguously "Free as in Freedom Software".

yeahforsureman 7y ago

I wouldn't pay much attention to such statement knowing the historical background. Stallman was and is a proponent of his own terminology, i.e. "free software", and the related definition which actually isn't that different (hence the catch-all "FLOSS"). Anyway, it's stupid to argue over this. The FAQ on the Commons Clause site itself, reflecting the intention and thinking of the drafter and the initiatiors, specifically states the license is "source-available", not "open source". When talking about open source as a form of licensing as opposed to e.g. software development culture/methodology, the distinction here is quite widely accepted and non-contentious.