5 ms·

this might make sense if you were talking about free software. free software is very unclear and it makes people believe things that are not true about the soft

this might make sense if you were talking about free software. free software is very unclear and it makes people believe things that are not true about the software. free software doesn't need to be 0 cost. this is not the case with open source. for close to 2 decades it was very obvious what open source meant and there was no confusion about it. it wasn't until the source available movement started to take off and they started to cash in on open source's reputation and identity for the sake of promoting themselves and cheapening the meaning that it became confusing. the problem is that since this is a cultural movement and not a piece of intellectual property like a trademark there is no way to prevent people from contorting open source into whatever best suits their self serving interests.

dahart 4y ago
It makes sense with “open source” too, and the author already acknowledged that explicitly. I don’t think this point is even up for debate. The obvious & literal interpretation of the term is, is the source available to inspect? That is precisely what the author said is not the definition of “open source”, he wants the definition to come with more than that, specifically that “open source” needs to come with limitations on what you’re allowed to do with it once acquired; the argument is that it must not be public domain. I think it’s hyperbolic of you to suggest that when people use “open source” to mean “source that is open”, that implies they’re being selfish or contorting anything. You’re failing to acknowledge the very real problem that “open source” taken literally doesn’t mean what some people want it to mean.
- ssddanbrown 4y ago
  I do see some differences between "free software" and "open source" here, Specifically that "free software" is much more common and something that could be expected to be written naturally, without understanding this space. "open source" is not so common as part of natural language, and its main use has been around the realm of software and licensing.
  - dahart 4y ago
    IMO “free software” is misunderstood in exactly the same way “open source” is misunderstood, at least in the way you mean. Both terms are not good at getting the important point across in the title, because the words people want associated with the title aren’t actually in the title. This will forever be a problem as long as the title requires explanation (which it unquestionably does) and as long as software is a growing field and new people keep joining. I don’t know why the idea to say what you mean would get push back, we can’t expect people to interpret the phrase “open source” to mean more than what those two words imply. We can, and should, IMO, come up with a phrase that has words that imply the important bits. Following the CC model, maybe something like “derivation allowed” and “no discrimination”.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      Both terms are fine, long used and well-established. Free Software and Open Source software have complicated enough meanings that they need a sentence, not a phrase to explain; the phrase is just a label. And any software practitioner who doesn't know what people mean by Free or Open Source software isn't very good. If I start calling my OS "Windows" people might get upset even though windows predate MS by millennia.
- seba_dos1 4y ago
  > That is precisely what the author said is not the definition of “open source”, he wants the definition to come with more than that, specifically that “open source” needs to come with limitations on what you’re allowed to do with it once acquired; the argument is that it must not be public domain. Uhm, no? That's the opposite of what the article actually says. Public Domain code is Open Source without any doubt, period. There is however a set of acceptable limitations that you can place on your code and still call it Open Source - mostly related to attribution or keeping derived works under the same terms. If you place other limitations on what others are allowed to do with your code once acquired, it's not Open Source regardless of whether they can see the source code or not. Which makes perfect sense to me - I can easily see the source code of Windows 2000, but that doesn't make it open.
  - dahart 4y ago
    This is incorrect, you are mistaken about public domain and about what the article says. The very first criteria in OSI’s definition of “Open Source” is: 1. Free Redistribution The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. “Rationale: By constraining the license to require free redistribution, we eliminate the temptation for licensors to throw away many long-term gains to make short-term gains. If we didn't do this, there would be lots of pressure for cooperators to defect.” https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated Public domain has no such restriction. Public domain always allows people to do literally anything they want, sell & redistribute the public domain code in any form they choose, make it proprietary, redistribute the code under any other license at all, and generally do anything they want for any reason including throwing away long-term gains for short-term gains.
    - seba_dos1 4y ago
      It's you who is massively mistaken. What you quoted is one of the requirements needed to consider a license to be an Open Source license. To paraphrase it, it says "an Open Source license can't restrict any party from selling or redistributing the software (...), otherwise it's not an Open Source license". In other words, a license that doesn't restrict selling and redistribution (and also fulfills all the other requirements) can be considered Open Source. You even quoted it yourself: "The license shall not restrict". Public Domain code does not restrict these things (nor anything else), therefore it's perfectly compatible with Open Source licenses and Public Domain code can obviously be considered Open Source [EDIT: at least assuming that it's actually effectively Public Domain, which can be hard to determine - see commoner's reply]. Sure, you can also take some Public Domain code and stamp a non-free license on it (just like you can do with code under some [but not all] of Open Source licenses, like MIT) - which I guess may be what caused your confusion?

dahart 4y ago

It makes sense with “open source” too, and the author already acknowledged that explicitly. I don’t think this point is even up for debate. The obvious & literal interpretation of the term is, is the source available to inspect? That is precisely what the author said is not the definition of “open source”, he wants the definition to come with more than that, specifically that “open source” needs to come with limitations on what you’re allowed to do with it once acquired; the argument is that it must not be public domain. I think it’s hyperbolic of you to suggest that when people use “open source” to mean “source that is open”, that implies they’re being selfish or contorting anything. You’re failing to acknowledge the very real problem that “open source” taken literally doesn’t mean what some people want it to mean.

ssddanbrown 4y ago
I do see some differences between "free software" and "open source" here, Specifically that "free software" is much more common and something that could be expected to be written naturally, without understanding this space. "open source" is not so common as part of natural language, and its main use has been around the realm of software and licensing.
- dahart 4y ago
  IMO “free software” is misunderstood in exactly the same way “open source” is misunderstood, at least in the way you mean. Both terms are not good at getting the important point across in the title, because the words people want associated with the title aren’t actually in the title. This will forever be a problem as long as the title requires explanation (which it unquestionably does) and as long as software is a growing field and new people keep joining. I don’t know why the idea to say what you mean would get push back, we can’t expect people to interpret the phrase “open source” to mean more than what those two words imply. We can, and should, IMO, come up with a phrase that has words that imply the important bits. Following the CC model, maybe something like “derivation allowed” and “no discrimination”.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    Both terms are fine, long used and well-established. Free Software and Open Source software have complicated enough meanings that they need a sentence, not a phrase to explain; the phrase is just a label. And any software practitioner who doesn't know what people mean by Free or Open Source software isn't very good. If I start calling my OS "Windows" people might get upset even though windows predate MS by millennia.
seba_dos1 4y ago
> That is precisely what the author said is not the definition of “open source”, he wants the definition to come with more than that, specifically that “open source” needs to come with limitations on what you’re allowed to do with it once acquired; the argument is that it must not be public domain. Uhm, no? That's the opposite of what the article actually says. Public Domain code is Open Source without any doubt, period. There is however a set of acceptable limitations that you can place on your code and still call it Open Source - mostly related to attribution or keeping derived works under the same terms. If you place other limitations on what others are allowed to do with your code once acquired, it's not Open Source regardless of whether they can see the source code or not. Which makes perfect sense to me - I can easily see the source code of Windows 2000, but that doesn't make it open.
- dahart 4y ago
  This is incorrect, you are mistaken about public domain and about what the article says. The very first criteria in OSI’s definition of “Open Source” is: 1. Free Redistribution The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. “Rationale: By constraining the license to require free redistribution, we eliminate the temptation for licensors to throw away many long-term gains to make short-term gains. If we didn't do this, there would be lots of pressure for cooperators to defect.” https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated Public domain has no such restriction. Public domain always allows people to do literally anything they want, sell & redistribute the public domain code in any form they choose, make it proprietary, redistribute the code under any other license at all, and generally do anything they want for any reason including throwing away long-term gains for short-term gains.
  - seba_dos1 4y ago
    It's you who is massively mistaken. What you quoted is one of the requirements needed to consider a license to be an Open Source license. To paraphrase it, it says "an Open Source license can't restrict any party from selling or redistributing the software (...), otherwise it's not an Open Source license". In other words, a license that doesn't restrict selling and redistribution (and also fulfills all the other requirements) can be considered Open Source. You even quoted it yourself: "The license shall not restrict". Public Domain code does not restrict these things (nor anything else), therefore it's perfectly compatible with Open Source licenses and Public Domain code can obviously be considered Open Source [EDIT: at least assuming that it's actually effectively Public Domain, which can be hard to determine - see commoner's reply]. Sure, you can also take some Public Domain code and stamp a non-free license on it (just like you can do with code under some [but not all] of Open Source licenses, like MIT) - which I guess may be what caused your confusion?