8 ms·

True, Defold is only 90% open source according to that definition, but that is definitely a lot better than the 0% it was yesterday.

by britzl 6y ago

sjamaan 6y ago
That's not how it works. These terms have a specific meaning and using them for something that's not covered by the definition dilutes their effectiveness. On top of that, they even use "free and open source", which refers to certain moral freedoms rather than license mechanics.
- gambiting 6y ago
  I don't think I agree - is the source publicly available? Yes? Then it's open source. I understand that Open Source Foundation has written a definition, good for them - but they do not have the monopoly or final say on defining the term or how it's used(or rather - I don't see why should I recognize and accept their definition).
  - detaro 6y ago
    They came up with the term, and it's extremely widely used that way. And large parts of the software community will assume malice on your part if you present something as open source that doesn't fit the definition. EDIT: IMHO it's in the best interest of everyone working on such licenses to come up with a new positive term and position that, instead of burning goodwill by trying to co-opt the "open source" label. (E.g. if I remember correctly, in the discussions around cloud software, "fair software" was one label used. Nice and positive word, not stepping on existing communities toes). And in reverse I hope people would be accepting of attempts with such new licenses if they keep the messaging straight.
    - matz1 6y ago
      Just because it's widely use doesn't mean anything. No one as monopoly or single authority of open source definition.
      - zozbot234 6y ago
        Except they kinda do, seeing as OSI holds the literal trademark to open source.
        gpm 6y ago
        Not only do they not hold a trademark, they tried to acquire a trademark and failed because it was "too descriptive" (and I suspect because it was already in use). See my comment above for links: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23234029 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23234029
      - detaro 6y ago
        Nobody has a single authority on what words mean. That doesn't mean terms don't have established meanings, and it'll make things difficult for you if you insist on using them differently.
      - SXX 6y ago
        As a private person you're free to use words as you wish, but in this case this is false advertising by a company. Go on try to sell some pork dish as "vegan" or "kosher" food and I'll look how fast you'll be brought to a court. This is no different.
        matz1 6y ago
        You can always try to brought any one for any reason to a court, doesn't mean you will succeed.
        m0llusk 6y ago
        You are being blinded by your political agenda. This source code is readily available and costs nothing, thus it is both open and free. Much of the machinery here is relevant to me, so I can learn about the nature of the system through the code and adapt design lessons to completely unrelated applications. Without this free and open code no such thing would be possible. I understand that you have nothing but loathing and contempt for my approach to software development and you are welcome to promote your philosophy but you will find it impossible to bend simple language to your wishes as long as there are people who see things completely differently.
    - gpm 6y ago
      It's well documented that the term was in use, referring to "source available" software no less, before they claim to have invented it. It might be a case of two groups coming up with the same term, but they were not the first. - The OSI claims to have coined the term in 1988 https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source.. https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source.... - Here is a use of the term, 7 times, and as the main object, from 1996 http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html - Here is a use of the term, as a proper noun, from 1993 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32/WoBvPB0U9Co/wXfpq5nEJTYJ https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.os.ms-windows.pro... On a separate note the OSI's original mission statement was (https://web.archive.org/web/20000408035603/http://opensource.org/press_releases/osi-launch.html https://web.archive.org/web/20000408035603/http://opensource...) > The Open Source Initiative's mission will be to own and defend the Open Source trademark, to manage the www.opensource.org resources, to develop branding programs attractive to software customers and producers, and to advance the cause of open-source software and serve the hacker community in other appropriate way Which they since abandoned because "there is virtually no chance that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office would register the mark "open source"; the mark is too descriptive" (and one suspects because the mark was already in use in trade of software, see the xent.com link above) https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p... They have no special rights to the term open source. I wish people (including the OSI) would stop pretending otherwise. You can think that it's a good idea to use their definition without relying on falsehoods.
      - dwheeler 6y ago
        The word computer used to refer only to humans who did computation. If today you said I have a powerful computer, and brought out a human, other people would correctly claim that you are misleading them. The phrase open source software has an extremely well-known meaning. Uses like this, which fraudulently claim to be open source software even though they fail to comply with the normal definition as used for over 20 years, is simply an exploitative fraud. If they want to join the open source community, they would be very welcome. But trying to say that they're part of a community they're not is not okay. It's especially dangerous to the people who are not familiar with the law and might make big decisions for themselves based on falsehoods. Today, trying to use that phrase in the way they're using it is deceptive.
  - davidjgraph 6y ago
    The source to this web page is publicly viewable, right-click->view page source. That doesn't make it open source. It is a standard copyrighted object. Publicly viewable != open source.
    - gambiting 6y ago
      I might be nitpicking, but viewing the source of this website HN does not give you the source code for Hacker News - there is plenty of other code working in the background that you can't see and which is required to make the website work. Clicking on "view page source" is more akin taking a picture of the Eiffel Tower, while "open source" would be if France posted the architectural plans in the open. But just because the plans are out in the open doesn't mean that someone doesn't hold copyright to them.
  - smichel17 6y ago
    > is the source publicly available? Yes? There's already a word for this, "source available", and by your own words it's a great fit for this scenario.
    - matz1 6y ago
      Thanks but I prefer the word "open source".
      - dwheeler 6y ago
        You may prefer it, but that phrase already has a different standard meaning. Try again.
        matz1 6y ago
        standard according to who ? OSI? I disagree with them. There is no sole absolute authority of a word meaning.
        dwheeler 6y ago
        Almost everyone else, which is exactly how language is defined.
        whelming_wave 6y ago
        Given the efforts of you and others in this thread, it’s apparent that it isn’t “almost everyone else”.
        dwheeler 6y ago
        The US government also defines the term "open source software" as allowing any use, both in top-level executive branch policies and in law. See my lengthy post elsewhere here for the details.
        matz1 6y ago
  - oytis 6y ago
    There is a term for that: source-available software. It covers all the cases where you can get the source, but the license is too restrictive to be classified as open-source. "Open-source software" is a term, it has its meaning. Diluting it for the sake of marketing does not serve the community well.
  - Intermernet 6y ago
    Standard example. The source code for Windows 2000 is publicly available. Do you want to try telling Microsoft that it's open source? Don't break the accepted definition.
    - gambiting 6y ago
      Was it published by Mirosoft officially? Then yeah, absolutely, I'd argue that Windows 2000 is open source. Was it leaked by someone through shady means? Then no, of course it isn't open source, since accessing it is not necessarily legal depending on the jurisdiction.
      - Intermernet 6y ago
        You didn't specify who published it, and that illustrates the point. Your definition of open source is a moving target. The accepted definition isn't.
  - dwheeler 6y ago
    No, this is not open source. It is "source available". When someone makes a blatantly false claim, we have another word for it: "fraud". A Rose by Any Other Name May smell as sweet, but lying is still not okay. The phrase "open source software" has a meaning. If you just mean source available, say that instead.
    - zwaps 6y ago
      There is a law defining what open source is? Because then it is indeed fraud! Otherwise it isn't.
      - dwheeler 6y ago
        No, that's not what fraud is. Let me focus on the US legal system (different jurisdictions are different, though I suspect other jurisdictions are similar). Fraud is the intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right. The government does NOT try to officially define every phrase in the language, nor does it need to. That's not how it works. The issues are, (1) does there appear to be intentional deception, and (2) Would that deception result in unfair/unlawful gain or the loss of the legal right? Issue 2 is true by definition (open source software as the term is generally used always allows people to use the software for any purpose, including commercial users, and this doesn't provide that right, so by definition the victim is losing a legal right). So we're really only asking the first issue - is there intentional deception? I presume you'd argue that there's no deception. Only a court can decide that for sure, but if someone uses a phrase likely to mislead most people, that's at least getting dangerously close. So no, a government doesn't have to define the term. But even if you think that governments have to use the term that way... well, governments do define the term "open source software" just like OSI does. Again, I'll focus on the US, but this is by no means limited to the US. The US Office of Management and Budget (OMB) memo of August 8, 2016 (M-16-21) "Federal Source Code Policy: Achieving Efficiency, Transparency, and Innovation through Reusable and Open Source Software" https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/memoranda/2016/m_16_21.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/me... defines the term "open source software" as follows: "Open Source Software (OSS): Software that can be accessed, used, modified, and shared by anyone. OSS is often distributed under licenses that comply with the definition of “Open Source” provided by the Open Source Initiative (https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd) and/or that meet the definition of “Free Software” provided by the Free Software Foundation (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)" https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)" Notice that it can be "used by anyone" and it specifically references the OSI's definition. That memo included a mandate to release a certain amount of code as OSS - which meant the government had to define the term, and yes, they used the normal definition for it. That OMB memo cites the US Department of Defense (DoD)'s official policy on open source software that was released in 2009: https://dodcio.defense.gov/Portals/0/Documents/FOSS/2009OSS.pdf https://dodcio.defense.gov/Portals/0/Documents/FOSS/2009OSS.... - it says in 2.2.b.1.iv "Open source licenses do not restrict who can use the software or the fields of endeavor in which the software can be used." So the US DoD thinks that commercial use is by definition allowed by open source licenses. This wasn't even the first government memo about open source software; they had another one in 2003. I've been citing executive branch policies, but it's also in US law. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2018 at https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2810/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2810... section 875 requires the DoD to participate more fully in a "pilot program for open source software", and cites the policy and definition of OMB M-16-21 ("Federal Source Code Policy: Achieving Efficiency, Transparency, and Innovation through Reusable and Open Source Software") dated August 8, 2016. Yes, that's a US law, and it by reference defines "open source software" using the OSI definition. That is, commercial use must be allowed. So yes, the US government DOES have a definition of open source software, and it requires permission for any field of endeavor, just like OSI's definition does. It's been that way for almost 20 years. Caveat: I am NOT a lawyer. But I've cited my sources, look them up if you have questions.
- britzl 6y ago
  Thank you for the feedback! It was never our intention to step on any toes or misrepresent Defold. Defold is a free (doesn't cost anything) and open (you can extend and modify it) game engine with a permissive license and we invite the community to contribute on GitHub. Please see this statement: https://twitter.com/defold/status/1262744466311360517 https://twitter.com/defold/status/1262744466311360517
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

True, Defold is only 90% open source according to that definition, but that is definitely a lot better than the 0% it was yesterday.

by britzl 6y ago

True, Defold is only 90% open source according to that definition, but that is definitely a lot better than the 0% it was yesterday.

sjamaan 6y ago

That's not how it works. These terms have a specific meaning and using them for something that's not covered by the definition dilutes their effectiveness. On top of that, they even use "free and open source", which refers to certain moral freedoms rather than license mechanics.

gambiting 6y ago
I don't think I agree - is the source publicly available? Yes? Then it's open source. I understand that Open Source Foundation has written a definition, good for them - but they do not have the monopoly or final say on defining the term or how it's used(or rather - I don't see why should I recognize and accept their definition).
- detaro 6y ago
  They came up with the term, and it's extremely widely used that way. And large parts of the software community will assume malice on your part if you present something as open source that doesn't fit the definition. EDIT: IMHO it's in the best interest of everyone working on such licenses to come up with a new positive term and position that, instead of burning goodwill by trying to co-opt the "open source" label. (E.g. if I remember correctly, in the discussions around cloud software, "fair software" was one label used. Nice and positive word, not stepping on existing communities toes). And in reverse I hope people would be accepting of attempts with such new licenses if they keep the messaging straight.
  - matz1 6y ago
    Just because it's widely use doesn't mean anything. No one as monopoly or single authority of open source definition.
    - zozbot234 6y ago
      Except they kinda do, seeing as OSI holds the literal trademark to open source.
      - gpm 6y ago
        Not only do they not hold a trademark, they tried to acquire a trademark and failed because it was "too descriptive" (and I suspect because it was already in use). See my comment above for links: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23234029 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23234029
    - detaro 6y ago
      Nobody has a single authority on what words mean. That doesn't mean terms don't have established meanings, and it'll make things difficult for you if you insist on using them differently.
    - SXX 6y ago
      As a private person you're free to use words as you wish, but in this case this is false advertising by a company. Go on try to sell some pork dish as "vegan" or "kosher" food and I'll look how fast you'll be brought to a court. This is no different.
      - matz1 6y ago
        You can always try to brought any one for any reason to a court, doesn't mean you will succeed.
      - m0llusk 6y ago
        You are being blinded by your political agenda. This source code is readily available and costs nothing, thus it is both open and free. Much of the machinery here is relevant to me, so I can learn about the nature of the system through the code and adapt design lessons to completely unrelated applications. Without this free and open code no such thing would be possible. I understand that you have nothing but loathing and contempt for my approach to software development and you are welcome to promote your philosophy but you will find it impossible to bend simple language to your wishes as long as there are people who see things completely differently.
  - gpm 6y ago
    It's well documented that the term was in use, referring to "source available" software no less, before they claim to have invented it. It might be a case of two groups coming up with the same term, but they were not the first. - The OSI claims to have coined the term in 1988 https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source.. https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source.... - Here is a use of the term, 7 times, and as the main object, from 1996 http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html - Here is a use of the term, as a proper noun, from 1993 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32/WoBvPB0U9Co/wXfpq5nEJTYJ https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.os.ms-windows.pro... On a separate note the OSI's original mission statement was (https://web.archive.org/web/20000408035603/http://opensource.org/press_releases/osi-launch.html https://web.archive.org/web/20000408035603/http://opensource...) > The Open Source Initiative's mission will be to own and defend the Open Source trademark, to manage the www.opensource.org resources, to develop branding programs attractive to software customers and producers, and to advance the cause of open-source software and serve the hacker community in other appropriate way Which they since abandoned because "there is virtually no chance that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office would register the mark "open source"; the mark is too descriptive" (and one suspects because the mark was already in use in trade of software, see the xent.com link above) https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p... They have no special rights to the term open source. I wish people (including the OSI) would stop pretending otherwise. You can think that it's a good idea to use their definition without relying on falsehoods.
    - dwheeler 6y ago
      The word computer used to refer only to humans who did computation. If today you said I have a powerful computer, and brought out a human, other people would correctly claim that you are misleading them. The phrase open source software has an extremely well-known meaning. Uses like this, which fraudulently claim to be open source software even though they fail to comply with the normal definition as used for over 20 years, is simply an exploitative fraud. If they want to join the open source community, they would be very welcome. But trying to say that they're part of a community they're not is not okay. It's especially dangerous to the people who are not familiar with the law and might make big decisions for themselves based on falsehoods. Today, trying to use that phrase in the way they're using it is deceptive.
- davidjgraph 6y ago
  The source to this web page is publicly viewable, right-click->view page source. That doesn't make it open source. It is a standard copyrighted object. Publicly viewable != open source.
  - gambiting 6y ago
    I might be nitpicking, but viewing the source of this website HN does not give you the source code for Hacker News - there is plenty of other code working in the background that you can't see and which is required to make the website work. Clicking on "view page source" is more akin taking a picture of the Eiffel Tower, while "open source" would be if France posted the architectural plans in the open. But just because the plans are out in the open doesn't mean that someone doesn't hold copyright to them.
- smichel17 6y ago
  > is the source publicly available? Yes? There's already a word for this, "source available", and by your own words it's a great fit for this scenario.
  - matz1 6y ago
    Thanks but I prefer the word "open source".
    - dwheeler 6y ago
      You may prefer it, but that phrase already has a different standard meaning. Try again.
      - matz1 6y ago
        standard according to who ? OSI? I disagree with them. There is no sole absolute authority of a word meaning.
        dwheeler 6y ago
        Almost everyone else, which is exactly how language is defined.
        whelming_wave 6y ago
        Given the efforts of you and others in this thread, it’s apparent that it isn’t “almost everyone else”.
        dwheeler 6y ago
        The US government also defines the term "open source software" as allowing any use, both in top-level executive branch policies and in law. See my lengthy post elsewhere here for the details.
        matz1 6y ago
- oytis 6y ago
  There is a term for that: source-available software. It covers all the cases where you can get the source, but the license is too restrictive to be classified as open-source. "Open-source software" is a term, it has its meaning. Diluting it for the sake of marketing does not serve the community well.
- Intermernet 6y ago
  Standard example. The source code for Windows 2000 is publicly available. Do you want to try telling Microsoft that it's open source? Don't break the accepted definition.
  - gambiting 6y ago
    Was it published by Mirosoft officially? Then yeah, absolutely, I'd argue that Windows 2000 is open source. Was it leaked by someone through shady means? Then no, of course it isn't open source, since accessing it is not necessarily legal depending on the jurisdiction.
    - Intermernet 6y ago
      You didn't specify who published it, and that illustrates the point. Your definition of open source is a moving target. The accepted definition isn't.
- dwheeler 6y ago
  No, this is not open source. It is "source available". When someone makes a blatantly false claim, we have another word for it: "fraud". A Rose by Any Other Name May smell as sweet, but lying is still not okay. The phrase "open source software" has a meaning. If you just mean source available, say that instead.
  - zwaps 6y ago
    There is a law defining what open source is? Because then it is indeed fraud! Otherwise it isn't.
    - dwheeler 6y ago
      No, that's not what fraud is. Let me focus on the US legal system (different jurisdictions are different, though I suspect other jurisdictions are similar). Fraud is the intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right. The government does NOT try to officially define every phrase in the language, nor does it need to. That's not how it works. The issues are, (1) does there appear to be intentional deception, and (2) Would that deception result in unfair/unlawful gain or the loss of the legal right? Issue 2 is true by definition (open source software as the term is generally used always allows people to use the software for any purpose, including commercial users, and this doesn't provide that right, so by definition the victim is losing a legal right). So we're really only asking the first issue - is there intentional deception? I presume you'd argue that there's no deception. Only a court can decide that for sure, but if someone uses a phrase likely to mislead most people, that's at least getting dangerously close. So no, a government doesn't have to define the term. But even if you think that governments have to use the term that way... well, governments do define the term "open source software" just like OSI does. Again, I'll focus on the US, but this is by no means limited to the US. The US Office of Management and Budget (OMB) memo of August 8, 2016 (M-16-21) "Federal Source Code Policy: Achieving Efficiency, Transparency, and Innovation through Reusable and Open Source Software" https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/memoranda/2016/m_16_21.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/me... defines the term "open source software" as follows: "Open Source Software (OSS): Software that can be accessed, used, modified, and shared by anyone. OSS is often distributed under licenses that comply with the definition of “Open Source” provided by the Open Source Initiative (https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd) and/or that meet the definition of “Free Software” provided by the Free Software Foundation (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)" https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)" Notice that it can be "used by anyone" and it specifically references the OSI's definition. That memo included a mandate to release a certain amount of code as OSS - which meant the government had to define the term, and yes, they used the normal definition for it. That OMB memo cites the US Department of Defense (DoD)'s official policy on open source software that was released in 2009: https://dodcio.defense.gov/Portals/0/Documents/FOSS/2009OSS.pdf https://dodcio.defense.gov/Portals/0/Documents/FOSS/2009OSS.... - it says in 2.2.b.1.iv "Open source licenses do not restrict who can use the software or the fields of endeavor in which the software can be used." So the US DoD thinks that commercial use is by definition allowed by open source licenses. This wasn't even the first government memo about open source software; they had another one in 2003. I've been citing executive branch policies, but it's also in US law. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2018 at https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2810/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2810... section 875 requires the DoD to participate more fully in a "pilot program for open source software", and cites the policy and definition of OMB M-16-21 ("Federal Source Code Policy: Achieving Efficiency, Transparency, and Innovation through Reusable and Open Source Software") dated August 8, 2016. Yes, that's a US law, and it by reference defines "open source software" using the OSI definition. That is, commercial use must be allowed. So yes, the US government DOES have a definition of open source software, and it requires permission for any field of endeavor, just like OSI's definition does. It's been that way for almost 20 years. Caveat: I am NOT a lawyer. But I've cited my sources, look them up if you have questions.
britzl 6y ago
Thank you for the feedback! It was never our intention to step on any toes or misrepresent Defold. Defold is a free (doesn't cost anything) and open (you can extend and modify it) game engine with a permissive license and we invite the community to contribute on GitHub. Please see this statement: https://twitter.com/defold/status/1262744466311360517 https://twitter.com/defold/status/1262744466311360517

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]