5 ms·

Is this not a controversial topic? As far as I know there are two camps (as is alluded to further downthread) on whether Open Source is literal, or implies more

Is this not a controversial topic? As far as I know there are two camps (as is alluded to further downthread) on whether Open Source is literal, or implies more about the license. I favour the "open source = source available" definition, because that's how most people will understand it anyway. But regardless of where you stand on this, I think it's fair to say it's at least controversial.

swsieber 7y ago
I favor the "source available = source available" and "open source = open source (by the commonly understood open source definition)". It's much clearer that way, and wasn't really a muddy issue until certain big software companies started using "open source = source available"
- contravariant 7y ago
  For the sake of clarity you probably shouldn't define what you mean by 'open source' in terms of the 'commonly understood open source definition'.
  - swsieber 7y ago
    Oh, that's true - I was sloppy. OSI definition is what I meant.
- nothrabannosir 7y ago
  Having to define "open source" with that addendum illustrates the issue quite apropriately. "Open Source ≠ open source" is the essence of the problem. The source is open, yet it isn't open source. Here's an experiment you can run: hold an informal survey amongst a representative subset of programmers. "What does open source mean?". See what they say. I think I met one who knew what the OSI was. Ironically, "free software" is a similarly terrible term. It should be called "freedom software". I once e-mailed Stallman to ask about it, and he replied they couldn't use that term because it was already trademarked. Welp...
gnud 7y ago
The term "open source" was afaik invented by the people who would form the "open source consortium". If you're not going by their definition, I think you're just wrong.
- tbyehl 7y ago
  Open Source Initiative? Commons Clause does not meet OSI's definition of "Open Source" nor the GNU/FSF definition of "Free Software" so it's fair to say it should not be called either. https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software#Commons_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software#Comm...
  - gnud 7y ago
    Yes, I meant the OSI. Yes, it doesn't fit either definition, so it shouldn't be called either. The term 'free software' is hard to keep 'pure', because it has an obvious meaning for people who know nothing about software licensing. But IMO, the terms 'libre software' and 'open source' should not be diluted. It doesn't serve any purpose to mis-use those terms, except confusing everyone.
- nothrabannosir 7y ago
  Prescriptivism is a policy you can choose to follow, but I don't subscribe to it. I'm a descriptivist through and through. And from what I understand, I'm not the only one. The very language I'm writing this to you in is probably the world's most exemplary instance of this principle in action. Besides, isn't using things in other ways than they were originally intended the essence of The Hacker? ;)

swsieber 7y ago

I favor the "source available = source available" and "open source = open source (by the commonly understood open source definition)". It's much clearer that way, and wasn't really a muddy issue until certain big software companies started using "open source = source available"

contravariant 7y ago
For the sake of clarity you probably shouldn't define what you mean by 'open source' in terms of the 'commonly understood open source definition'.
- swsieber 7y ago
  Oh, that's true - I was sloppy. OSI definition is what I meant.
nothrabannosir 7y ago
Having to define "open source" with that addendum illustrates the issue quite apropriately. "Open Source ≠ open source" is the essence of the problem. The source is open, yet it isn't open source. Here's an experiment you can run: hold an informal survey amongst a representative subset of programmers. "What does open source mean?". See what they say. I think I met one who knew what the OSI was. Ironically, "free software" is a similarly terrible term. It should be called "freedom software". I once e-mailed Stallman to ask about it, and he replied they couldn't use that term because it was already trademarked. Welp...

gnud 7y ago

The term "open source" was afaik invented by the people who would form the "open source consortium". If you're not going by their definition, I think you're just wrong.

tbyehl 7y ago
Open Source Initiative? Commons Clause does not meet OSI's definition of "Open Source" nor the GNU/FSF definition of "Free Software" so it's fair to say it should not be called either. https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software#Commons_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software#Comm...
- gnud 7y ago
  Yes, I meant the OSI. Yes, it doesn't fit either definition, so it shouldn't be called either. The term 'free software' is hard to keep 'pure', because it has an obvious meaning for people who know nothing about software licensing. But IMO, the terms 'libre software' and 'open source' should not be diluted. It doesn't serve any purpose to mis-use those terms, except confusing everyone.
nothrabannosir 7y ago
Prescriptivism is a policy you can choose to follow, but I don't subscribe to it. I'm a descriptivist through and through. And from what I understand, I'm not the only one. The very language I'm writing this to you in is probably the world's most exemplary instance of this principle in action. Besides, isn't using things in other ways than they were originally intended the essence of The Hacker? ;)