4 ms·

How is it not open source?

version_five 5y ago
I would say it could be open source (defined as you can see the source code) but it's not free, as in it has restrictions.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  > open source (defined as you can see the source code) But that's not what that's defined as.
  - ddulaney 5y ago
    I define Open Source to mean that I can see the source code. The OSI defines open source one way, and I just defined open source another way. This is an inconsistency that trips up lots of people on HN and elsewhere. There isn’t one definition, there are many, and calling “anybody but the mega-rich can use this for free; they have to pay” open source falls within some definitions but not others.
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      https://xkcd.com/1860/ https://xkcd.com/1860/ The OSI's definition is the widely accepted one. If you mean something else, then make up your own word. To redefine open source like you're trying to do just makes communication more difficult for no benefit.
      - bigiain 5y ago
        OSI didn't invent the term, and weren't the first ones to use it. Why shouldn't they be the ones required to "make up their own word"? "Open source" has a reasonable plain english meaning which doesn't automatically include all the requirements of OSI's "definition". I don't see why the simplest plain english interpretation shouldn't be considered "the real one". You say OSI's definition is "the widely accepted one", I'm 100% certain that's not true if your sample group is representative of "english speakers" instead of "hacker news readers". (And I'm pretty sure your linked xkcd supports my argument here more than yours.)
        morelisp 5y ago
        Your response is a bit ironic as OSI more or less did invent the term (causality-wise, rather much of the group that invented the term went on to found OSI), but attached an already-existing definition (of free software) to it.
- type0 5y ago
  > defined as you can see the source code That's "source available"
josephcsible 5y ago
Because it doesn't meet the Open Source Definition: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd I think you're confusing open-source with visible-source.
- bigiain 5y ago
  It doesn't meet one definition that one advocacy group choose to use. Other "open source" companies are somewhat more realistic and honest about the term and it's history: https://www.redhat.com/en/topics/open-source/what-is-open-source https://www.redhat.com/en/topics/open-source/what-is-open-so... I'm not saying the OSI's objectives and motivations are bad, but they did not invent the term "open source", they were not the first to use it, and their ongoing attempts to gatekeep it's usage are - at least to me - tiresome. (Having said that, I also find rms's hardcore free software stance tiresome, but I'm glad he chooses to dig his heels in so hard there, as an opposite-end-of-the-bellcurve outlier to counterbalance the vested commercial interests trying to extend and embrace the free software movement for commercial greed...)

I would say it could be open source (defined as you can see the source code) but it's not free, as in it has restrictions.

josephcsible 5y ago
> open source (defined as you can see the source code) But that's not what that's defined as.
- ddulaney 5y ago
  I define Open Source to mean that I can see the source code. The OSI defines open source one way, and I just defined open source another way. This is an inconsistency that trips up lots of people on HN and elsewhere. There isn’t one definition, there are many, and calling “anybody but the mega-rich can use this for free; they have to pay” open source falls within some definitions but not others.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    https://xkcd.com/1860/ https://xkcd.com/1860/ The OSI's definition is the widely accepted one. If you mean something else, then make up your own word. To redefine open source like you're trying to do just makes communication more difficult for no benefit.
    - bigiain 5y ago
      OSI didn't invent the term, and weren't the first ones to use it. Why shouldn't they be the ones required to "make up their own word"? "Open source" has a reasonable plain english meaning which doesn't automatically include all the requirements of OSI's "definition". I don't see why the simplest plain english interpretation shouldn't be considered "the real one". You say OSI's definition is "the widely accepted one", I'm 100% certain that's not true if your sample group is representative of "english speakers" instead of "hacker news readers". (And I'm pretty sure your linked xkcd supports my argument here more than yours.)
      - morelisp 5y ago
        Your response is a bit ironic as OSI more or less did invent the term (causality-wise, rather much of the group that invented the term went on to found OSI), but attached an already-existing definition (of free software) to it.
type0 5y ago
> defined as you can see the source code That's "source available"

josephcsible 5y ago

Because it doesn't meet the Open Source Definition: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd I think you're confusing open-source with visible-source.

bigiain 5y ago
It doesn't meet one definition that one advocacy group choose to use. Other "open source" companies are somewhat more realistic and honest about the term and it's history: https://www.redhat.com/en/topics/open-source/what-is-open-source https://www.redhat.com/en/topics/open-source/what-is-open-so... I'm not saying the OSI's objectives and motivations are bad, but they did not invent the term "open source", they were not the first to use it, and their ongoing attempts to gatekeep it's usage are - at least to me - tiresome. (Having said that, I also find rms's hardcore free software stance tiresome, but I'm glad he chooses to dig his heels in so hard there, as an opposite-end-of-the-bellcurve outlier to counterbalance the vested commercial interests trying to extend and embrace the free software movement for commercial greed...)