7 ms·

it may not be free software, but it is open source

by basedtho 6y ago

thaumasiotes 6y ago
The term of art is "source available" - "open source" means something different.
- wolfgke 6y ago
  As far as I am aware, a usual term of art is also "shared source" (this term was in particular used by Microsoft in the past).
  - stonemetal12 6y ago
    My understanding was "shared source" was MS's particular license for "source available" not their term for the practice.
    - wolfgke 6y ago
      "Shared source" was an umbrella term by Microsoft for its licenses that allows access to the source code. Among these licenses were ones that were also open-source licenses, but also ones that were not. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shared_Source_Initiative&oldid=982661754 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shared_Source_Ini... lists the following licenses: - Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL) [open source] - Microsoft Reciprocal License (Ms-RL) [open source] - Microsoft Limited Public License (Ms-LPL) [not open source] - Microsoft Limited Reciprocal License (Ms-LRL) [not open source] - Microsoft Reference Source License (Ms-RSL) [not open source] So, "shared source" was clearly not a particular license by MS. Also, at that time, Microsoft tried to establish this term (by its Shared Source Initiative) for the general concept of "source code is available, but the license is not necessarily open source". In the linked Wikipedia article, one can read on this: "However, former OSI president Michael Tiemann considers the phrase 'Shared Source' itself to be a marketing term created by Microsoft. He argues that it is 'an insurgent term that distracts and dilutes the Open Source message by using similar-sounding terms and offering similar-sounding promises'."
- CamperBob2 6y ago
  That's not a term of art, it's someone's opinion. "Open source" means whatever I say it does, whatever you say it does, whatever Apple says it does, whatever ESR says it does, and whatever RMS says it does.
  - icebraining 6y ago
    Sorry, can you define each word you've used in your post?
    - CamperBob2 6y ago
      I don't understand what you're asking, can you elaborate? Edit: I guess you're asking about 'ESR' and 'RMS.' ESR = Eric Raymond, an early proponent of open source as a communal development model ( http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html ). RMS is Richard Stallman, the originator of the GNU project on which the Linux kernel is based, as well as the GPL. RMS disagrees with ESR, in that he argues that the term "open source" is a distraction from the larger goal of free software ( https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....) . There have been plenty of other authors with strong opinions on the subject but these are the two whose names most often come up in the context. Point being, it is unreasonable to say that "open source" is a term of art (as the GP did) whose meaning will be agreed upon by practitioners and advocates everywhere.
      - ganafagol 6y ago
        No, the question was supposed to illustrate that if you have that approach to language, then communication is impossible. There needs to be a shared notion of what certain words and concepts mean. You claimed that they mean whatever some person claims them to mean. So the question to you was what do your words mean, since with that entirely freewheeling approach to language, nobody here can know what you meant.
        CamperBob2 6y ago
seirl 6y ago
No, not according to the Open Source Definition of the OSI, which is generally recognized to be the authority in terms of what we call "open source". > No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition

it may not be free software, but it is open source

thaumasiotes 6y ago

The term of art is "source available" - "open source" means something different.

wolfgke 6y ago
As far as I am aware, a usual term of art is also "shared source" (this term was in particular used by Microsoft in the past).
- stonemetal12 6y ago
  My understanding was "shared source" was MS's particular license for "source available" not their term for the practice.
  - wolfgke 6y ago
    "Shared source" was an umbrella term by Microsoft for its licenses that allows access to the source code. Among these licenses were ones that were also open-source licenses, but also ones that were not. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shared_Source_Initiative&oldid=982661754 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shared_Source_Ini... lists the following licenses: - Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL) [open source] - Microsoft Reciprocal License (Ms-RL) [open source] - Microsoft Limited Public License (Ms-LPL) [not open source] - Microsoft Limited Reciprocal License (Ms-LRL) [not open source] - Microsoft Reference Source License (Ms-RSL) [not open source] So, "shared source" was clearly not a particular license by MS. Also, at that time, Microsoft tried to establish this term (by its Shared Source Initiative) for the general concept of "source code is available, but the license is not necessarily open source". In the linked Wikipedia article, one can read on this: "However, former OSI president Michael Tiemann considers the phrase 'Shared Source' itself to be a marketing term created by Microsoft. He argues that it is 'an insurgent term that distracts and dilutes the Open Source message by using similar-sounding terms and offering similar-sounding promises'."
CamperBob2 6y ago
That's not a term of art, it's someone's opinion. "Open source" means whatever I say it does, whatever you say it does, whatever Apple says it does, whatever ESR says it does, and whatever RMS says it does.
- icebraining 6y ago
  Sorry, can you define each word you've used in your post?
  - CamperBob2 6y ago
    I don't understand what you're asking, can you elaborate? Edit: I guess you're asking about 'ESR' and 'RMS.' ESR = Eric Raymond, an early proponent of open source as a communal development model ( http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html ). RMS is Richard Stallman, the originator of the GNU project on which the Linux kernel is based, as well as the GPL. RMS disagrees with ESR, in that he argues that the term "open source" is a distraction from the larger goal of free software ( https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....) . There have been plenty of other authors with strong opinions on the subject but these are the two whose names most often come up in the context. Point being, it is unreasonable to say that "open source" is a term of art (as the GP did) whose meaning will be agreed upon by practitioners and advocates everywhere.
    - ganafagol 6y ago
      No, the question was supposed to illustrate that if you have that approach to language, then communication is impossible. There needs to be a shared notion of what certain words and concepts mean. You claimed that they mean whatever some person claims them to mean. So the question to you was what do your words mean, since with that entirely freewheeling approach to language, nobody here can know what you meant.
      - CamperBob2 6y ago

seirl 6y ago

No, not according to the Open Source Definition of the OSI, which is generally recognized to be the authority in terms of what we call "open source". > No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition