4 ms·

Wolfram here were contrasting their model against the idea that products like Mathematica could have been developed in a fully “open source” manner. (It’s a fal

by derefr 5y ago

Wolfram here were contrasting their model against the idea that products like Mathematica could have been developed in a fully “open source” manner. (It’s a false binary, but it’s what they’re doing.) “Open source” is a different thing than “source-available” or “shared-source.” Many closed-source products are “source-available” in the manner you’re talking about, but this does not make them “open source.” You’re not really an open-source project, in the conventional meaning of the term, until either 1. Your project starts accepting code contributions from the community (if perhaps after a gruelling code-contribution process); or 2. Your project’s codebase becomes licensed in a way that allows people to fork it, add their own changes, and then use the result themselves to achieve their own ends (if perhaps only non-commercial ends.) Which are two sides of the same coin, really; they both imply that people will be tinkering inside your code; and that the “canonical” version of your code in everyone else’s mind might then become the version that the community thinks is better, rather than your official release.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
michalhosna 5y ago
Counter example: SQLite
- spacechild1 5y ago
  I think you missed the "or" in the parent post. SQLite is closed for contributions, but it's still open source in the sense that anyone can take the source code, make changes and use it in their own projects. From the SQLite website: > SQLite source code is in the public-domain and is free to everyone to use for any purpose. That being said, I agree with your sibling poster that "open contribution" is not a requirement for "open source".
- lousyd 5y ago
  And draw.io, I recently learned. "You can have the source, but we're not interested in your opinions about it, tyvm."
TAForObvReasons 5y ago
You are conflating "open source" with "open contribution". https://github.com/jgraph/drawio#open-source-not-open-contribution https://github.com/jgraph/drawio#open-source-not-open-contri... explains it neatly: > Similar to SQLite, diagrams.net is open source but closed to contributions. > The level of complexity of this project means that even simple changes can break a lot of other moving parts. The amount of testing required is far more than it first seems. If we were to receive a PR, we'd have to basically throw it away and write it how we want it to be implemented. > We are grateful for community involvement, bug reports, & feature requests. We do not wish to come off as anything but welcoming, however, we've made the decision to keep this project closed to contributions for the long term viability of the project.
- derefr 5y ago
  No; see my second point definition. A thing is open source if, essentially, people are free to re-mix it; whether that be by modifying it upstream, or by forking it downstream. If there is no ability to make changes and then legally use your own changed version, then the thing is not open source in the way any developer would understand the term.
  - floatboth 5y ago
    Yes, but "whether" is kinda weird here. The first (community development) requires the second (open sorce). If upstream can accept your contributions, this means you've already forked it for yourself.
q-big 5y ago
> You’re not really an open-source project, in the conventional meaning of the term, until either > 1. Your project starts accepting code contributions from the community (if perhaps after a gruelling code-contribution process); or > 2. Your project’s codebase becomes licensed in a way that allows people to fork it, add their own changes, and then use the result themselves to achieve their own ends (if perhaps only non-commercial ends.) There is a formal definition of Open Source by the Open Source Initiative: > https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd Only 2 is open source (but the no-commercial condition means this it is not), while only 1 is not open source.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- derefr 5y ago
  That's why I said "the conventional meaning of the term." Who cares what some organization who just decided to name themselves after the term, defines the term as? It's not a jargon term; it's a word, defined loosely by how people use it and what they intend to mean when they use it.
  - throwaway2048 5y ago
    approximately nobody defines open source as "you can see the source but you aren't free to fork it or modify it" This is not the conventional meaning of the term, and has repeatedly been used as an avenue to attack the concept in general. As a comparison, how happy would you be calling a system where you can only vote for candidates approved by a single leader a "Democracy". Under these standards, both the USSR and China are democracies. The differences matter, it is not pedantry and it is not some organization enforcing "their definition" overtop of what people "commonly think".
    - derefr 5y ago
      I think you misread something? What you just gave is the definition of the term “source available.” I’ll restate. My descriptivist definition of the term “open-source”, was that something is “open-source” if you are free to do at least one of either forking the thing for your own use, or modifying the thing and pushing those modifications upstream. In other words, “open-source” software is software where you’re free to notice a flaw in the program and, by some mechanism, get it fixed in such a way that other people can benefit from the fix. And yes, the OSI definition of “Open Source” is an organization enforcing an arbitrary definition, because it disagrees with many uses of the term “open source” — specifically, the OSI considers GPL-licensed software to not be capital-letters “Open Source”, despite everyone conventionally considering it regular-adjective “open-source”. (The FSF does a similar brain-damaged thing with the term “Free Software”, which has not-much to do with what people would call “free software” — but at least “free software” isn’t a very common term in modern parlance; people aren’t constantly talking about “free software” with the FSF then misconstruing their words as if they had said “Free Software.” Which is exactly what the OSI does when people talk about “open-source software”, and then the OSI misconstrues their statements as statements about “Open Source software.”) Yes, this is exactly why pedants use the term “FOSS” — i.e. “Free and Open Source Software”, a union-ing of the set of software that is FSF-jargon “Free Software” with the set of software that is OSI-jargon “Open Source Software.” Regular people, who aren’t trying to be sycophants toward these two organizations, on the other hand, just use the uncapitalized adjective open-source to refer to this larger set.
commoner 5y ago
I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it was phrased as precisely as it could have been. I agree that Wolfram is criticizing community-based software development, and using that reasoning to incompletely justify its decision to not release its source code. Wolfram could have made their software source-available without making it open source, and their page doesn't directly address this middle ground. As others have said, #1 is not really necessary since no open source project needs to accept contributions from anyone. #2, on the other hand, is absolutely necessary because open source software must allow users the freedom to copy, modify, and use the code as they wish. > (if perhaps only non-commercial ends.) However, software under licenses that forbid users from using the code for certain purposes (including commercial purposes) are not open source. Both the OSI[1] and the FSF[2] object to this type of restriction. Allowing arbitrary restrictions on use would raise the question of the types of discrimination that should be allowed in FOSS licenses, which is something many in the free and open source software community prefer not to deal with. [1] https://opensource.org/osd#fields-of-endeavor https://opensource.org/osd#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. [2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#selling https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#selling: “Free software” does not mean “noncommercial.” On the contrary, a free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution.
specialist 5y ago
> ...allows people to fork it, add their own changes... Emphatic agreement. Bryan Cantrill touched on this too: "...we [now] know that OpenSolaris didn’t go far enough: even though the right to fork was understood, there was not enough attention paid to the power to fork. As a result, the operating system never quite got to being 100% open" http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2010/08/03/opensolaris-and-the-power-to-fork/ http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2010/08/03/opensolaris-and-the-p... I experienced this first hand while being paid to work on FOSS. At the time, I just couldn't figure out why our very well resourced, well intentioned project was chowdering. Cantrill's illuminating insight, per usual, was spot on. -- To the pedants arguing with u/derefr: Stop it. Step back, get curious, ask u/derefr to clarify. u/derefr is trying to say something important. Some of us have actual experience with this stuff, not covered in the manual. It often takes great effort to reflect and articulate novel experiences. Especially when those experiences don't meet anyone's expectations. "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not." -- Further, definitions, rules, bylaws, and code of conducts are just starting points. Ever DM a role playing game? Tried to get your local party to approve a resolution? Had your day in court? As if some formal definition somewhere is the last word on running a successful FOSS project. Please. Human projects are at least as complicated as the humans themselves.
- jmiserez 5y ago
  I'd also recommend the classic "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" essay by Eric Steven Raymond: http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral... From Wikipedia: >In 1998, the essay helped the final push for Netscape Communications Corporation to release the source code for Netscape Communicator and start the Mozilla project; it was cited by Frank Hecker and other employees as an outside independent validation of his arguments. Netscape's public recognition of this influence brought Raymond renown in hacker culture.

by derefr 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

michalhosna 5y ago

Counter example: SQLite

spacechild1 5y ago
I think you missed the "or" in the parent post. SQLite is closed for contributions, but it's still open source in the sense that anyone can take the source code, make changes and use it in their own projects. From the SQLite website: > SQLite source code is in the public-domain and is free to everyone to use for any purpose. That being said, I agree with your sibling poster that "open contribution" is not a requirement for "open source".
lousyd 5y ago
And draw.io, I recently learned. "You can have the source, but we're not interested in your opinions about it, tyvm."

TAForObvReasons 5y ago

You are conflating "open source" with "open contribution". https://github.com/jgraph/drawio#open-source-not-open-contribution https://github.com/jgraph/drawio#open-source-not-open-contri... explains it neatly: > Similar to SQLite, diagrams.net is open source but closed to contributions. > The level of complexity of this project means that even simple changes can break a lot of other moving parts. The amount of testing required is far more than it first seems. If we were to receive a PR, we'd have to basically throw it away and write it how we want it to be implemented. > We are grateful for community involvement, bug reports, & feature requests. We do not wish to come off as anything but welcoming, however, we've made the decision to keep this project closed to contributions for the long term viability of the project.

derefr 5y ago
No; see my second point definition. A thing is open source if, essentially, people are free to re-mix it; whether that be by modifying it upstream, or by forking it downstream. If there is no ability to make changes and then legally use your own changed version, then the thing is not open source in the way any developer would understand the term.
- floatboth 5y ago
  Yes, but "whether" is kinda weird here. The first (community development) requires the second (open sorce). If upstream can accept your contributions, this means you've already forked it for yourself.

q-big 5y ago

> You’re not really an open-source project, in the conventional meaning of the term, until either > 1. Your project starts accepting code contributions from the community (if perhaps after a gruelling code-contribution process); or > 2. Your project’s codebase becomes licensed in a way that allows people to fork it, add their own changes, and then use the result themselves to achieve their own ends (if perhaps only non-commercial ends.) There is a formal definition of Open Source by the Open Source Initiative: > https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd Only 2 is open source (but the no-commercial condition means this it is not), while only 1 is not open source.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
derefr 5y ago
That's why I said "the conventional meaning of the term." Who cares what some organization who just decided to name themselves after the term, defines the term as? It's not a jargon term; it's a word, defined loosely by how people use it and what they intend to mean when they use it.
- throwaway2048 5y ago
  approximately nobody defines open source as "you can see the source but you aren't free to fork it or modify it" This is not the conventional meaning of the term, and has repeatedly been used as an avenue to attack the concept in general. As a comparison, how happy would you be calling a system where you can only vote for candidates approved by a single leader a "Democracy". Under these standards, both the USSR and China are democracies. The differences matter, it is not pedantry and it is not some organization enforcing "their definition" overtop of what people "commonly think".
  - derefr 5y ago
    I think you misread something? What you just gave is the definition of the term “source available.” I’ll restate. My descriptivist definition of the term “open-source”, was that something is “open-source” if you are free to do at least one of either forking the thing for your own use, or modifying the thing and pushing those modifications upstream. In other words, “open-source” software is software where you’re free to notice a flaw in the program and, by some mechanism, get it fixed in such a way that other people can benefit from the fix. And yes, the OSI definition of “Open Source” is an organization enforcing an arbitrary definition, because it disagrees with many uses of the term “open source” — specifically, the OSI considers GPL-licensed software to not be capital-letters “Open Source”, despite everyone conventionally considering it regular-adjective “open-source”. (The FSF does a similar brain-damaged thing with the term “Free Software”, which has not-much to do with what people would call “free software” — but at least “free software” isn’t a very common term in modern parlance; people aren’t constantly talking about “free software” with the FSF then misconstruing their words as if they had said “Free Software.” Which is exactly what the OSI does when people talk about “open-source software”, and then the OSI misconstrues their statements as statements about “Open Source software.”) Yes, this is exactly why pedants use the term “FOSS” — i.e. “Free and Open Source Software”, a union-ing of the set of software that is FSF-jargon “Free Software” with the set of software that is OSI-jargon “Open Source Software.” Regular people, who aren’t trying to be sycophants toward these two organizations, on the other hand, just use the uncapitalized adjective open-source to refer to this larger set.

commoner 5y ago

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it was phrased as precisely as it could have been. I agree that Wolfram is criticizing community-based software development, and using that reasoning to incompletely justify its decision to not release its source code. Wolfram could have made their software source-available without making it open source, and their page doesn't directly address this middle ground. As others have said, #1 is not really necessary since no open source project needs to accept contributions from anyone. #2, on the other hand, is absolutely necessary because open source software must allow users the freedom to copy, modify, and use the code as they wish. > (if perhaps only non-commercial ends.) However, software under licenses that forbid users from using the code for certain purposes (including commercial purposes) are not open source. Both the OSI[1] and the FSF[2] object to this type of restriction. Allowing arbitrary restrictions on use would raise the question of the types of discrimination that should be allowed in FOSS licenses, which is something many in the free and open source software community prefer not to deal with. [1] https://opensource.org/osd#fields-of-endeavor https://opensource.org/osd#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. [2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#selling https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#selling: “Free software” does not mean “noncommercial.” On the contrary, a free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution.

specialist 5y ago

> ...allows people to fork it, add their own changes... Emphatic agreement. Bryan Cantrill touched on this too: "...we [now] know that OpenSolaris didn’t go far enough: even though the right to fork was understood, there was not enough attention paid to the power to fork. As a result, the operating system never quite got to being 100% open" http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2010/08/03/opensolaris-and-the-power-to-fork/ http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2010/08/03/opensolaris-and-the-p... I experienced this first hand while being paid to work on FOSS. At the time, I just couldn't figure out why our very well resourced, well intentioned project was chowdering. Cantrill's illuminating insight, per usual, was spot on. -- To the pedants arguing with u/derefr: Stop it. Step back, get curious, ask u/derefr to clarify. u/derefr is trying to say something important. Some of us have actual experience with this stuff, not covered in the manual. It often takes great effort to reflect and articulate novel experiences. Especially when those experiences don't meet anyone's expectations. "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not." -- Further, definitions, rules, bylaws, and code of conducts are just starting points. Ever DM a role playing game? Tried to get your local party to approve a resolution? Had your day in court? As if some formal definition somewhere is the last word on running a successful FOSS project. Please. Human projects are at least as complicated as the humans themselves.

jmiserez 5y ago
I'd also recommend the classic "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" essay by Eric Steven Raymond: http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral... From Wikipedia: >In 1998, the essay helped the final push for Netscape Communications Corporation to release the source code for Netscape Communicator and start the Mozilla project; it was cited by Frank Hecker and other employees as an outside independent validation of his arguments. Netscape's public recognition of this influence brought Raymond renown in hacker culture.