4 ms·

Requiring people to sign up in order to download the "open source" movement (even if free) is not in the spirit of open source IMO. My name, address etc has va

Requiring people to sign up in order to download the "open source" movement (even if free) is not in the spirit of open source IMO. My name, address etc has value. So this is not free. Thumbs up however for creating this movement.

jhardy54 6y ago
Open source != zero cost.
m463 6y ago
Remember "open source" is an ambiguous term, which is why RMS explains and carefully defines free software and other terms. "The terms “free software” and “open source” stand for almost the same range of programs. However, they say deeply different things about those programs, based on different values. The free software movement campaigns for freedom for the users of computing; it is a movement for freedom and justice. By contrast, the open source idea values mainly practical advantage and does not campaign for principles. This is why we do not agree with open source, and do not use that term." https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
PostOnce 6y ago
People always argue what "open source" means, but we all know damn well what it means in the colloquial sense now. It means the source is available, and you can use it under some very permissive terms, and there is no barrier to access. This is like how a "free" game used to mean actually free, but now free means "with IAP and ads", so now we don't have a single word to just mean "free as in beer" for games. So now I can't tell someone my hobby project is just plain free, I have to explain "no I don't mean full of bullshit, I mean free". FWIW I agree, it's a violation of our standard idea of open source. Tangentially, watchmaking is cool, and there are many free/open plans in various mechanical and 3D printing type communities. Also, I feel like sharing this link which shows this guy's shop, it's not huge or complex, and makes the art of watchmaking seem approachable. Just need an old pantograph milling machine and a few other things https://watchesbysjx.com/2017/05/portrait-masahiro-kikuno-japanese-watchmaker.html https://watchesbysjx.com/2017/05/portrait-masahiro-kikuno-ja...
- viraptor 6y ago
  It happens in many areas, if descriptivists are more common than prescriptivists, you can't win - the term/phrase will change its meaning. We've lost some good words to that fight and we'll lose more.
- ezoe 6y ago
  I guess that's why RMS don't like the idea of term "Open Source". The term "free" in English is ambiguous and it has it's problem. But the term "Open Source" is worse. It just feel like source code is available but it doesn't matter the rest of the strings attached to it.
- hnick 6y ago
  Unlimited means limited? What a country! Apologies to Dr Nick
- chmod600 6y ago
  When I think of a "free game", I think of shareware. In what era did "free game" mean really free?
  - PostOnce 6y ago
    Free full game on a demo disc in the 90s/00s, you could sell magazines giving away an old gane Free release of old game to promote new game (lots of these) Free on steam / epic / origin (to get new users) Free in a cereal box (chex quest anyone) Free because the author doesn't want to sell it anymore but wants people to play it Free because it's open source now AND the assets are included (like ur quan masters) Free because its a hobby (like https://thedarkmod.com/ https://thedarkmod.com/ or 0 A.D. or other 'real' games that are hobbies) Lots of games have been free as in beer some time or other
froh 6y ago
in the late 1990s I ran into GCC c++ template issues. I reached out to the ML and I got the reply that those were fixed in the cygnus version, which I could buy. I'd get the fixed source then. and several GNU projects, too, had the source to future releases only accessible to approved members and closed circles. rms was very clear that the license meant: once you got the tech, you had the right to also get the source. If that meant to pay for the tech, that was perfectly fine. freedom. not free beer.
- eatbitseveryday 6y ago
  ...and what when the "cost" to purchase it exceeds an amount no person or corporation would ever pay? $1bn for source code? Or 10x the USA GDP? Effectively one cannot get the sources.
  - endgame 6y ago
    Even GPL2 didn't allow that > Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
    - froh 6y ago
      oh of course it did. neither gpl forces you to put your software source to a public server. all it says is: if I give you binaries under gpl, and only then, I also have to give you the source, and you then have the right to modify and redistribute, under the same terms. if I give the binaries to you under gpl 3, then in addition I have to provide you with tools to install your updated software into your specific drm protected device (and you're explicitly good wrt parents I may hold) neither gpl 2 not gpl 3 anywhere talk about making the source code (or the software) available to anybody free of charge. edit: the key is 'corresponding', with paragraph 3 being about software distribution. 'any third oarty' in the quoted clause b of paragraph 3 references your recipients of the software, not anybody and their neighbor. the meaning is: if you give someone the software, you also give them the source.
zvr 6y ago
It's perfectly fine for them to ask for information before showing you the download links. From the information on the website they seem to want to create a community in their Association, where members will contribute. They say that "All published plans are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0).", so anyone who gets the plans can definitely redistribute them (put them in a GitHub repo or something).

jhardy54 6y ago

Open source != zero cost.

m463 6y ago

Remember "open source" is an ambiguous term, which is why RMS explains and carefully defines free software and other terms. "The terms “free software” and “open source” stand for almost the same range of programs. However, they say deeply different things about those programs, based on different values. The free software movement campaigns for freedom for the users of computing; it is a movement for freedom and justice. By contrast, the open source idea values mainly practical advantage and does not campaign for principles. This is why we do not agree with open source, and do not use that term." https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

PostOnce 6y ago

People always argue what "open source" means, but we all know damn well what it means in the colloquial sense now. It means the source is available, and you can use it under some very permissive terms, and there is no barrier to access. This is like how a "free" game used to mean actually free, but now free means "with IAP and ads", so now we don't have a single word to just mean "free as in beer" for games. So now I can't tell someone my hobby project is just plain free, I have to explain "no I don't mean full of bullshit, I mean free". FWIW I agree, it's a violation of our standard idea of open source. Tangentially, watchmaking is cool, and there are many free/open plans in various mechanical and 3D printing type communities. Also, I feel like sharing this link which shows this guy's shop, it's not huge or complex, and makes the art of watchmaking seem approachable. Just need an old pantograph milling machine and a few other things https://watchesbysjx.com/2017/05/portrait-masahiro-kikuno-japanese-watchmaker.html https://watchesbysjx.com/2017/05/portrait-masahiro-kikuno-ja...

viraptor 6y ago
It happens in many areas, if descriptivists are more common than prescriptivists, you can't win - the term/phrase will change its meaning. We've lost some good words to that fight and we'll lose more.
ezoe 6y ago
I guess that's why RMS don't like the idea of term "Open Source". The term "free" in English is ambiguous and it has it's problem. But the term "Open Source" is worse. It just feel like source code is available but it doesn't matter the rest of the strings attached to it.
hnick 6y ago
Unlimited means limited? What a country! Apologies to Dr Nick
chmod600 6y ago
When I think of a "free game", I think of shareware. In what era did "free game" mean really free?
- PostOnce 6y ago
  Free full game on a demo disc in the 90s/00s, you could sell magazines giving away an old gane Free release of old game to promote new game (lots of these) Free on steam / epic / origin (to get new users) Free in a cereal box (chex quest anyone) Free because the author doesn't want to sell it anymore but wants people to play it Free because it's open source now AND the assets are included (like ur quan masters) Free because its a hobby (like https://thedarkmod.com/ https://thedarkmod.com/ or 0 A.D. or other 'real' games that are hobbies) Lots of games have been free as in beer some time or other

froh 6y ago

in the late 1990s I ran into GCC c++ template issues. I reached out to the ML and I got the reply that those were fixed in the cygnus version, which I could buy. I'd get the fixed source then. and several GNU projects, too, had the source to future releases only accessible to approved members and closed circles. rms was very clear that the license meant: once you got the tech, you had the right to also get the source. If that meant to pay for the tech, that was perfectly fine. freedom. not free beer.

eatbitseveryday 6y ago
...and what when the "cost" to purchase it exceeds an amount no person or corporation would ever pay? $1bn for source code? Or 10x the USA GDP? Effectively one cannot get the sources.
- endgame 6y ago
  Even GPL2 didn't allow that > Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
  - froh 6y ago
    oh of course it did. neither gpl forces you to put your software source to a public server. all it says is: if I give you binaries under gpl, and only then, I also have to give you the source, and you then have the right to modify and redistribute, under the same terms. if I give the binaries to you under gpl 3, then in addition I have to provide you with tools to install your updated software into your specific drm protected device (and you're explicitly good wrt parents I may hold) neither gpl 2 not gpl 3 anywhere talk about making the source code (or the software) available to anybody free of charge. edit: the key is 'corresponding', with paragraph 3 being about software distribution. 'any third oarty' in the quoted clause b of paragraph 3 references your recipients of the software, not anybody and their neighbor. the meaning is: if you give someone the software, you also give them the source.

zvr 6y ago

It's perfectly fine for them to ask for information before showing you the download links. From the information on the website they seem to want to create a community in their Association, where members will contribute. They say that "All published plans are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0).", so anyone who gets the plans can definitely redistribute them (put them in a GitHub repo or something).