4 ms·

> Not every open-source project accepts contributions. This is something that you just interpret into "open source", but was never part of it. I do interpret i

by orlp 5y ago

> Not every open-source project accepts contributions. This is something that you just interpret into "open source", but was never part of it. I do interpret it into it, as do many others. But not everyone. Stallman and the people at GNU have fought against the term "open source" for a long time, precisely because people have different ideas of it: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... > What open source rather means is that you are free to create your own version/forks that you maintain by yourself if you want some personal code included. That is commonly referred to as free (as in freedom, not price) software, which is the strictest interpretation of open source I can come up with. Note that others have other interpretations of 'open source' that are even more strict (you may only view the source code, for example, or you may modify but not redistribute the code)! I personally don't include 'binary virality' a-la GPL in this strictest interpretation, but again, some do. Ultimately open source doesn't have one clear definition. In my book it means free software that is developed 'in the open' - accepting contributions from anyone based on merit. A more precise modern term would be FOSS - that is what I understand when I see open-source.

ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
I don't get into the OSS religious arguments. I consider almost all my stuff to be "open source," even the couple of projects that are "source available."[0] I think that it's important to make it all available, if I will call it "open source," but there's no reason, in my mind, to make it so that people can just take my work and use it commercially. That said, I generally like to use the MIT license, because I don't like coercive licenses. I just don't like it when people try to coerce me, so I won't do it to them. I am currently working on a non-open-source/non-source-available project. Considerable parts of it are open-source (MIT license), but the core app code, as well as a modified variant of my BAOBAB server[1], are proprietary and locked away. I don't think any of it is particularly awesome or worthy of secrets, but the folks I'm working with aren't as sanguine as am I, when it comes to opening the kimono, and I'll respect their wishes. I worked for years, for a corporation that had Fort Knox trade secret security. It's something that I'm used to doing. [0] https://github.com/RiftValleySoftware/ambiamara https://github.com/RiftValleySoftware/ambiamara [1] https://riftvalleysoftware.com/work/open-source-projects/#baobab https://riftvalleysoftware.com/work/open-source-projects/#ba...
detaro 5y ago
> That is commonly referred to as free (as in libre) software, which is the strictest interpretation of open source I can come up with. No, it's really not part of what makes libre/free stricter than Open-Source. E.g. it's clearly something required through the Open Source definition: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd > Stallman and the people at GNU Free Software projects following the requirements of the FSF also do not have to accept contributions. It's completely orthogonal.
- orlp 5y ago
  > No, it's really not part of what makes libre/free stricter than Open-Source. I edited out the libre portion and I clarified in my comment that I don't (by default) include the 'binary virality' a-la GPL in my strictest interpretation, but some certainly do. Strictest interpretation meaning here as in 'the bare minimum to qualify', not the one maximizing 'restrictions'. Again here not everyone agrees on even the term 'restriction' here, some would consider the binary source requirement of GPL a restriction, and others would consider it a restriction if they can't see the source of the binary program they're running. > Free Software projects following the requirements of the FSF also do not have to accept contributions. It's completely orthogonal. I never intended to claim that. My claim is that I (and many others) would consider accepting contributions based on merit as part of open-source. Maybe my above comment was unnecessarily encroaching on the topic of whether something like the MIT license is "free" or "libre". Ultimately I think it's orthogonal to what my main point was, and I apologize if I misused any definition myself.
bawolff 5y ago
>> Not every open-source project accepts contributions. This is something that you just interpret into "open source", but was never part of it. >I do interpret it into it, as do many others. But not everyone. Stallman and the people at GNU have fought against the term "open source" for a long time, precisely because people have different ideas of it: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... Literally nobody interprets open source to mean you have to accept every (or any) random patch from anyone on the internet. > Note that others have other interpretations of 'open source' that are even more strict (you may only view the source code, for example, or you may modify but not redistribute the code)! wtf no... some people (microsoft) tried to do something like that branded as "shared source",but nobody considers that open source. > Ultimately open source doesn't have one clear definition. Really because the osi definition seems pretty clear to me. Regardless, even if something is ambigious it doesn't mean you can make it mean anything you want. If i said, in my books open source is a breed of dog, people would say i am being stupid, because i am.
q-big 5y ago
> Note that others have other interpretations of 'open source' that are even more strict (you may only view the source code, for example, or you may modify but not redistribute the code)! "Open source" means "open source as defined by the OSI" who actually invented this term. For the concept that you may view, but not, say, modify or distribute the source code, for some time Microsoft attempted to promote the term "shared source".
mythz 5y ago
There's no version of OSS that comes with the contingent requiring its Authors to forever maintain or manage contributions for it. If they don't want to spend the time & effort to manage it, feel free to fork their OSS Software and maintain modifications yourself - that's what OSS Software enables you to do. > Ultimately open source doesn't have one clear definition. In my book it means free software that is developed 'in the open' - accepting contributions from anyone based on merit. A more precise modern term would be FOSS You're understanding of what Open Source Software is invalid, call what you want your OSS to be something else like "Collaborative Open Source" because your definition of what you think it is, is not in any OSI definition or certified license. "Open Source" does have a clear definition [1], OSI certified licenses which meets its definition is available at [2] [1] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd [2] https://opensource.org/licenses/category https://opensource.org/licenses/category

by orlp 5y ago

ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago

I don't get into the OSS religious arguments. I consider almost all my stuff to be "open source," even the couple of projects that are "source available."[0] I think that it's important to make it all available, if I will call it "open source," but there's no reason, in my mind, to make it so that people can just take my work and use it commercially. That said, I generally like to use the MIT license, because I don't like coercive licenses. I just don't like it when people try to coerce me, so I won't do it to them. I am currently working on a non-open-source/non-source-available project. Considerable parts of it are open-source (MIT license), but the core app code, as well as a modified variant of my BAOBAB server[1], are proprietary and locked away. I don't think any of it is particularly awesome or worthy of secrets, but the folks I'm working with aren't as sanguine as am I, when it comes to opening the kimono, and I'll respect their wishes. I worked for years, for a corporation that had Fort Knox trade secret security. It's something that I'm used to doing. [0] https://github.com/RiftValleySoftware/ambiamara https://github.com/RiftValleySoftware/ambiamara [1] https://riftvalleysoftware.com/work/open-source-projects/#baobab https://riftvalleysoftware.com/work/open-source-projects/#ba...

detaro 5y ago

> That is commonly referred to as free (as in libre) software, which is the strictest interpretation of open source I can come up with. No, it's really not part of what makes libre/free stricter than Open-Source. E.g. it's clearly something required through the Open Source definition: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd > Stallman and the people at GNU Free Software projects following the requirements of the FSF also do not have to accept contributions. It's completely orthogonal.

orlp 5y ago
> No, it's really not part of what makes libre/free stricter than Open-Source. I edited out the libre portion and I clarified in my comment that I don't (by default) include the 'binary virality' a-la GPL in my strictest interpretation, but some certainly do. Strictest interpretation meaning here as in 'the bare minimum to qualify', not the one maximizing 'restrictions'. Again here not everyone agrees on even the term 'restriction' here, some would consider the binary source requirement of GPL a restriction, and others would consider it a restriction if they can't see the source of the binary program they're running. > Free Software projects following the requirements of the FSF also do not have to accept contributions. It's completely orthogonal. I never intended to claim that. My claim is that I (and many others) would consider accepting contributions based on merit as part of open-source. Maybe my above comment was unnecessarily encroaching on the topic of whether something like the MIT license is "free" or "libre". Ultimately I think it's orthogonal to what my main point was, and I apologize if I misused any definition myself.

bawolff 5y ago

>> Not every open-source project accepts contributions. This is something that you just interpret into "open source", but was never part of it. >I do interpret it into it, as do many others. But not everyone. Stallman and the people at GNU have fought against the term "open source" for a long time, precisely because people have different ideas of it: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... Literally nobody interprets open source to mean you have to accept every (or any) random patch from anyone on the internet. > Note that others have other interpretations of 'open source' that are even more strict (you may only view the source code, for example, or you may modify but not redistribute the code)! wtf no... some people (microsoft) tried to do something like that branded as "shared source",but nobody considers that open source. > Ultimately open source doesn't have one clear definition. Really because the osi definition seems pretty clear to me. Regardless, even if something is ambigious it doesn't mean you can make it mean anything you want. If i said, in my books open source is a breed of dog, people would say i am being stupid, because i am.

q-big 5y ago

> Note that others have other interpretations of 'open source' that are even more strict (you may only view the source code, for example, or you may modify but not redistribute the code)! "Open source" means "open source as defined by the OSI" who actually invented this term. For the concept that you may view, but not, say, modify or distribute the source code, for some time Microsoft attempted to promote the term "shared source".

mythz 5y ago

There's no version of OSS that comes with the contingent requiring its Authors to forever maintain or manage contributions for it. If they don't want to spend the time & effort to manage it, feel free to fork their OSS Software and maintain modifications yourself - that's what OSS Software enables you to do. > Ultimately open source doesn't have one clear definition. In my book it means free software that is developed 'in the open' - accepting contributions from anyone based on merit. A more precise modern term would be FOSS You're understanding of what Open Source Software is invalid, call what you want your OSS to be something else like "Collaborative Open Source" because your definition of what you think it is, is not in any OSI definition or certified license. "Open Source" does have a clear definition [1], OSI certified licenses which meets its definition is available at [2] [1] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd [2] https://opensource.org/licenses/category https://opensource.org/licenses/category