6 ms·

> Unreal Engine 4 is open source Another small mistake here as well. The source is available to read and modify under license but it’s not open source

xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
The fact that this "mistake" occurs so frequently and is so trivial to make just tells me that the meaning you want it to have will not survive in the long run. You are correct that it isn't Open Source as defined by the Open Source Initiative, nor does it use an Open Source Initiative Approved License. None of that information, however, is helpful to the author or really changes anything about the article.
- willis936 6y ago
  Just because there are people who don’t understand what “free as in beer” means doesn’t mean that people should stop teaching them what it means.
  - JohnJamesRambo 6y ago
    I have never understood what the hell "free as in beer" means either.
    - dodobirdlord 6y ago
      If you see a sign advertising “Free Beer” you understand that the meaning of “free” in this context means “goods and/or services available at no cost”. The English word “free” means a lot of things and the meaning of “free” in the expression “Free Beer” is very different from the meaning in the expression “Free Speech”, where it is used to mean “not legally restricted”.
      - JohnJamesRambo 6y ago
        I guess I just don't know any places that have free beer.
        garmaine 6y ago
        "Free beer" is often used to describe a social or work gathering. If the host/company pays for drinks, it's "free beer." As in, "hey come to the seminar with me on Thursday: there's pizza and free beer."
    - humbledrone 6y ago
      It's confusing to me too when it's phrased that way. Stallman's original quote makes much more sense, "Think free as in free speech, not free beer." In other words, contrasting free as in "no restrictions", versus free as in "no cost".
      - dijit 6y ago
        Gratis vs Libre. Even as a non-latin speaking person I can identify the difference between those types of "free". Or, alternatively "Free as in Freedom", which is another phrase I've heard coming from the FSF.
    - Cybiote 6y ago
      Perhaps Freedoms vs Freebies?
    - aksss 6y ago
      I always thought “free as in beer” meant that you could make your own beer if you were willing to put the discovery, learning, and work in to make it happen. And you were responsible for the output.
      - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
        That's not correct, the meaning is as humbledrone says. Free as in beer is used in contrast with Free as in freedom, and refers to something made available free of charge.
- skohan 6y ago
  It's an extremely important distinction. There's a term for software like Unreal Engine, which is "source available", and the difference between this and "open source" has massive categorical differences in terms of what you can legally do with this source code. If an important distinction like this is fading from our language, it's probably evidence that newer members of the community haven't been fully educated on the implications of software licensing terms, and if that's the case we should focus on improving that education, not resign ourselves to important knowledge being lost by the community. For instance, if you learned that young people were not aware of the dangers of exposure to lead, you would not throw up your hands and say: "I guess we'll just start using lead pipes again". You would make an effort to pass on that knowledge.
  - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
    This topic turned up on HN 6 weeks ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26079067 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26079067 I agree with your position. Open Source is not a meaninglessly unclear term, it is a precise term of art. It makes good sense to resist efforts to turn it into a meaningless marketing term like premium. Some people point out that the term isn't trademarked. That doesn't matter. That isn't how terms of art work.
ekianjo 6y ago
Because "open source" means absolutely nothing. We should use "Libre/Free Software" or refer to actual licenses to be more accurate.
- yellowapple 6y ago
  Except "open source" does have a meaning - specifically, the one defined by the Open Source Initiative.
  - tremon 6y ago
    Stallman already wrote years ago why "open source" was a bad name. From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... : The official definition of “open source software” [..] agrees with our definition in most cases. However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software”—and the one most people seem to think it means—is “You can look at the source code.” That criterion is much weaker than the free software definition, much weaker also than the official definition of open source. [..] Since the obvious meaning for “open source” is not the meaning that its advocates intend, the result is that most people misunderstand the term.
    - remram 6y ago
      "Free" is also ambiguous in English, even more than "open". I suppose "libre" is explicit but also not an actual common word. "Open" is clear, widely accepted by the community including businesses, and is defended by the Open Source Initiative (think of them what you will, they do a good job of keeping that definition true, by doing things such as approving licenses). "Open" has also been extended to other areas, such as "open science" (which does not refer to science for which a paper is available, but to actual reusable science). I don't see any problem with "open", other than the fact RMS doesn't like it.
      - garmaine 6y ago
        > "Open" has also been extended to other areas, such as "open science" (which does not refer to science for which a paper is available, but to actual reusable science). That meaning predates the use of "open" to describe software, hence why "open source" isn't that great of a term for something truly new. It co-opts the much older term "open source" which means freely available through non-protected sources. Like, in the intelligence services "open sources" has meant non-classified, non-restricted sources. There's a similar meaning in journalism.
swalsh 6y ago
I call it "source available"
Bekwnn 6y ago
I've always referred to it as "(has) source access". It is a bit frustrating and misleading when people refer to it as open source.
brobdingnagians 6y ago
Language develops according to how people actually use it. There are two competing camps on the meaning of "open source"; I understand why there is a battle over it on ideological grounds, but I don't think it is necessarily a mistake, more of a different side of the debate. Much like how some people are pedantic about calling them "tissues", while a large body of people know the difference but just go on calling it kleenex. Not wrong, just a different culture of usage.
- hvis 6y ago
  One of the camps are members of the open source movement (developers, promoters and satisfied users) and the other comes from corporations trying to co-opt the term and its good reputation. It's not really a "everyone has a right to an opinion" type of situation. You can go on and support the dilution of the term, just remember when the software development culture has another turn to the worst, you had been a part of the problem.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

xyzzy_plugh 6y ago

The fact that this "mistake" occurs so frequently and is so trivial to make just tells me that the meaning you want it to have will not survive in the long run. You are correct that it isn't Open Source as defined by the Open Source Initiative, nor does it use an Open Source Initiative Approved License. None of that information, however, is helpful to the author or really changes anything about the article.

willis936 6y ago
Just because there are people who don’t understand what “free as in beer” means doesn’t mean that people should stop teaching them what it means.
- JohnJamesRambo 6y ago
  I have never understood what the hell "free as in beer" means either.
  - dodobirdlord 6y ago
    If you see a sign advertising “Free Beer” you understand that the meaning of “free” in this context means “goods and/or services available at no cost”. The English word “free” means a lot of things and the meaning of “free” in the expression “Free Beer” is very different from the meaning in the expression “Free Speech”, where it is used to mean “not legally restricted”.
    - JohnJamesRambo 6y ago
      I guess I just don't know any places that have free beer.
      - garmaine 6y ago
        "Free beer" is often used to describe a social or work gathering. If the host/company pays for drinks, it's "free beer." As in, "hey come to the seminar with me on Thursday: there's pizza and free beer."
  - humbledrone 6y ago
    It's confusing to me too when it's phrased that way. Stallman's original quote makes much more sense, "Think free as in free speech, not free beer." In other words, contrasting free as in "no restrictions", versus free as in "no cost".
    - dijit 6y ago
      Gratis vs Libre. Even as a non-latin speaking person I can identify the difference between those types of "free". Or, alternatively "Free as in Freedom", which is another phrase I've heard coming from the FSF.
  - Cybiote 6y ago
    Perhaps Freedoms vs Freebies?
  - aksss 6y ago
    I always thought “free as in beer” meant that you could make your own beer if you were willing to put the discovery, learning, and work in to make it happen. And you were responsible for the output.
    - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
      That's not correct, the meaning is as humbledrone says. Free as in beer is used in contrast with Free as in freedom, and refers to something made available free of charge.
skohan 6y ago
It's an extremely important distinction. There's a term for software like Unreal Engine, which is "source available", and the difference between this and "open source" has massive categorical differences in terms of what you can legally do with this source code. If an important distinction like this is fading from our language, it's probably evidence that newer members of the community haven't been fully educated on the implications of software licensing terms, and if that's the case we should focus on improving that education, not resign ourselves to important knowledge being lost by the community. For instance, if you learned that young people were not aware of the dangers of exposure to lead, you would not throw up your hands and say: "I guess we'll just start using lead pipes again". You would make an effort to pass on that knowledge.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  This topic turned up on HN 6 weeks ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26079067 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26079067 I agree with your position. Open Source is not a meaninglessly unclear term, it is a precise term of art. It makes good sense to resist efforts to turn it into a meaningless marketing term like premium. Some people point out that the term isn't trademarked. That doesn't matter. That isn't how terms of art work.

ekianjo 6y ago

Because "open source" means absolutely nothing. We should use "Libre/Free Software" or refer to actual licenses to be more accurate.

yellowapple 6y ago
Except "open source" does have a meaning - specifically, the one defined by the Open Source Initiative.
- tremon 6y ago
  Stallman already wrote years ago why "open source" was a bad name. From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... : The official definition of “open source software” [..] agrees with our definition in most cases. However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software”—and the one most people seem to think it means—is “You can look at the source code.” That criterion is much weaker than the free software definition, much weaker also than the official definition of open source. [..] Since the obvious meaning for “open source” is not the meaning that its advocates intend, the result is that most people misunderstand the term.
  - remram 6y ago
    "Free" is also ambiguous in English, even more than "open". I suppose "libre" is explicit but also not an actual common word. "Open" is clear, widely accepted by the community including businesses, and is defended by the Open Source Initiative (think of them what you will, they do a good job of keeping that definition true, by doing things such as approving licenses). "Open" has also been extended to other areas, such as "open science" (which does not refer to science for which a paper is available, but to actual reusable science). I don't see any problem with "open", other than the fact RMS doesn't like it.
    - garmaine 6y ago
      > "Open" has also been extended to other areas, such as "open science" (which does not refer to science for which a paper is available, but to actual reusable science). That meaning predates the use of "open" to describe software, hence why "open source" isn't that great of a term for something truly new. It co-opts the much older term "open source" which means freely available through non-protected sources. Like, in the intelligence services "open sources" has meant non-classified, non-restricted sources. There's a similar meaning in journalism.

swalsh 6y ago

I call it "source available"

Bekwnn 6y ago

I've always referred to it as "(has) source access". It is a bit frustrating and misleading when people refer to it as open source.

brobdingnagians 6y ago

Language develops according to how people actually use it. There are two competing camps on the meaning of "open source"; I understand why there is a battle over it on ideological grounds, but I don't think it is necessarily a mistake, more of a different side of the debate. Much like how some people are pedantic about calling them "tissues", while a large body of people know the difference but just go on calling it kleenex. Not wrong, just a different culture of usage.

hvis 6y ago
One of the camps are members of the open source movement (developers, promoters and satisfied users) and the other comes from corporations trying to co-opt the term and its good reputation. It's not really a "everyone has a right to an opinion" type of situation. You can go on and support the dilution of the term, just remember when the software development culture has another turn to the worst, you had been a part of the problem.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]