6 ms·

I don't really understand the definition of open source. I used to hear people say stuff along the lines of "If you just release the source and don't accept pat

I don't really understand the definition of open source. I used to hear people say stuff along the lines of "If you just release the source and don't accept patches then that's not real open source" But the opinion on that has changed I guess?

leeoniya 5y ago
> If you just release the source and don't accept patches then that's not real open source this is commonly referred to as "source available".
- dotancohen 5y ago
  Which would be fine for e.g. verifying the results of computations done using Mathematica. I completely agree that Mathematica needs a steady stream of income to continue, it is a great language and for many use cases the best available. But every time I see a paper that relied on Mathematica for critical conclusions I'm forced to dismiss it as incomplete speculation.
- detaro 5y ago
  Source available is specifically if the code is not under an open source license. Whereas software that is under an OS license is open source, whatever the maintainers policy on contributions.
  - leeoniya 5y ago
    ah, you're right. i missed that.
- rwmj 5y ago
  Not necessarily. There are some true open source projects where the development model is some company "throwing code over the wall". Often they don't make it easy or even possible for anyone outside the company to contribute, they don't have an open repository or bug tracker, release only periodic tarballs, etc. But the license is OSI approved, such as GPL, BSD, etc. so in theory someone could fork the project. TL;DR - development model != license
  - samhw 5y ago
    > There are some true open source projects where the development model is some company "throwing code over the wall". Often they don't make it easy or even possible for anyone outside the company to contribute[...] Google's V8 engine is essentially an example of this, though they do notionally have some framework for outside contributions (https://v8.dev/docs/contribute https://v8.dev/docs/contribute).
kaoD 5y ago
I never heard it that way. If you can fork it, it's open source, even if contributions are not accepted upstream. If upstream accepts patches but does not allow forks, it's not open source. It's about the license, not the project's governance model.
- sidpatil 5y ago
  The way I always understood it is that "open source" and "free software" are orthogonal concepts: Open source = bazaar-style (highly-decentralized development) Not open source = cathedral-style (highly-centralized development) Free software = source code released under a license that grants rights such as freedom to modify, redistribute, own a copy of, etc. (see [1] for the proper definition) Nonfree software = source code not released under such a license [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    > Open source = bazaar-style (highly-decentralized development) > Not open source = cathedral-style (highly-centralized development) Don't conflate cathedral/bazaar to mean open-source/not-open-source. Wasn't the original example of cathedral the open source Emacs project?
  - prmoustache 5y ago
    Those are your own definitions. open-source/free software is about the license, period. Then some people wants to add some romance around it but that is just their own opinion.
FemmeAndroid 5y ago
I’ve got to agree with you here. While I personally agree with the people commenting about open source being about the license rather than governance, I do not think that was always as widely accepted as it currently is in this comments section. I recall seeing a lot of hostility from people in the past about governance of a licensed project not being in line with ‘open source values,’ for example.
- Shikadi 5y ago
  "Open source values" is just a covert way of saying "RMS values"
  - rpdillon 5y ago
    I don't think that's correct. Open Source as a term was created in reaction to Free Software, which is RMS's thing. See: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
    - Shikadi 5y ago
      It wasn't created as a reaction to free software, it was created as a way to differentiate from free software, starting with Netscape navigator. But there's the open source initiative, which somehow I wasn't aware of: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Initiative https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Initiative
      - rpdillon 5y ago
        > It wasn't created as a reaction to free software, it was created as a way to differentiate from free software I wanted to correct your statement without getting into an argument. I view an attempt to differentiate as a type of reaction.
        Shikadi 5y ago
Shikadi 5y ago
If the source is available to anyone, it's open source. That is independent of the licensing model. Saying "That's not real open source" is just gatekeeping. There are different licenses, and when you insert the word "freedom", then you can start talking about how free said OSS is. It would be much more acceptable to say "If you just release the source and don't accept patches then that's not real _free_ open source", but even then, if their license is permissive, it still could be considered free. Free as in freedom: You're free to do whatever you want with the code Free as in beer: The product does not cost money Whether or not they accept patches is up to the maintainer, and does not affect the freedom or open source nature of the software
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

leeoniya 5y ago

> If you just release the source and don't accept patches then that's not real open source this is commonly referred to as "source available".

dotancohen 5y ago
Which would be fine for e.g. verifying the results of computations done using Mathematica. I completely agree that Mathematica needs a steady stream of income to continue, it is a great language and for many use cases the best available. But every time I see a paper that relied on Mathematica for critical conclusions I'm forced to dismiss it as incomplete speculation.
detaro 5y ago
Source available is specifically if the code is not under an open source license. Whereas software that is under an OS license is open source, whatever the maintainers policy on contributions.
- leeoniya 5y ago
  ah, you're right. i missed that.
rwmj 5y ago
Not necessarily. There are some true open source projects where the development model is some company "throwing code over the wall". Often they don't make it easy or even possible for anyone outside the company to contribute, they don't have an open repository or bug tracker, release only periodic tarballs, etc. But the license is OSI approved, such as GPL, BSD, etc. so in theory someone could fork the project. TL;DR - development model != license
- samhw 5y ago
  > There are some true open source projects where the development model is some company "throwing code over the wall". Often they don't make it easy or even possible for anyone outside the company to contribute[...] Google's V8 engine is essentially an example of this, though they do notionally have some framework for outside contributions (https://v8.dev/docs/contribute https://v8.dev/docs/contribute).

kaoD 5y ago

I never heard it that way. If you can fork it, it's open source, even if contributions are not accepted upstream. If upstream accepts patches but does not allow forks, it's not open source. It's about the license, not the project's governance model.

sidpatil 5y ago
The way I always understood it is that "open source" and "free software" are orthogonal concepts: Open source = bazaar-style (highly-decentralized development) Not open source = cathedral-style (highly-centralized development) Free software = source code released under a license that grants rights such as freedom to modify, redistribute, own a copy of, etc. (see [1] for the proper definition) Nonfree software = source code not released under such a license [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > Open source = bazaar-style (highly-decentralized development) > Not open source = cathedral-style (highly-centralized development) Don't conflate cathedral/bazaar to mean open-source/not-open-source. Wasn't the original example of cathedral the open source Emacs project?
- prmoustache 5y ago
  Those are your own definitions. open-source/free software is about the license, period. Then some people wants to add some romance around it but that is just their own opinion.

FemmeAndroid 5y ago

I’ve got to agree with you here. While I personally agree with the people commenting about open source being about the license rather than governance, I do not think that was always as widely accepted as it currently is in this comments section. I recall seeing a lot of hostility from people in the past about governance of a licensed project not being in line with ‘open source values,’ for example.

Shikadi 5y ago
"Open source values" is just a covert way of saying "RMS values"
- rpdillon 5y ago
  I don't think that's correct. Open Source as a term was created in reaction to Free Software, which is RMS's thing. See: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
  - Shikadi 5y ago
    It wasn't created as a reaction to free software, it was created as a way to differentiate from free software, starting with Netscape navigator. But there's the open source initiative, which somehow I wasn't aware of: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Initiative https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Initiative
    - rpdillon 5y ago
      > It wasn't created as a reaction to free software, it was created as a way to differentiate from free software I wanted to correct your statement without getting into an argument. I view an attempt to differentiate as a type of reaction.
      - Shikadi 5y ago

Shikadi 5y ago

If the source is available to anyone, it's open source. That is independent of the licensing model. Saying "That's not real open source" is just gatekeeping. There are different licenses, and when you insert the word "freedom", then you can start talking about how free said OSS is. It would be much more acceptable to say "If you just release the source and don't accept patches then that's not real _free_ open source", but even then, if their license is permissive, it still could be considered free. Free as in freedom: You're free to do whatever you want with the code Free as in beer: The product does not cost money Whether or not they accept patches is up to the maintainer, and does not affect the freedom or open source nature of the software

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]