4 ms·

If the non-commercial use license includes a copy of the source, why isn't that open source?

by rthomas6 4y ago

cercatrova 4y ago
Open source != source available
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  Disagree. Stop mangling language. Open source literally means the source code is freely available. If that's not good enough you need a new phrase.
  - Gud 4y ago
    No, this is not the definition of open source. Open Source was coined by OSI as an alternative (less political) than Free Software.
    - clcaev 4y ago
      Well, it was just as political... it's just the politics favor large companies who were convinced to use and let their employees contribute to projects under a license more akin to the public domain.
  - cercatrova 4y ago
    "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:" (omitted here) [0] Crucially, one cannot make their code "for non-commerical use only" and have it still be open source. It must be available for any entity to do with it what they wish. One can of course restrict that, but it would no longer be open source. Source available, perhaps, but not open source. Therefore, ironically, it is you who should not mangle language, not me. [0] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
    - colinmhayes 4y ago
      Taking two words that have a meaning when put together and changing that meaning is mangling language. opensource.org claiming open source means something different from what the phrase literally means is more harmful than helpful. I agree, we need to be able to talk about code that is actually free for all to use. "Open source" is not the way to do that.
      - cercatrova 4y ago
        Sorry, I cannot agree with you. OSI came up with the term "open source," hence I will use it as it is conventionally used, ie via their definition. If you want to literally interpret that, feel free to do so but know that others, such as those commenting on your thread, will not agree with you.
      - olddustytrail 4y ago
        The phrase doesn't literally mean anything. Does the phrase "open door" mean the door is freely available? Does the phrase "open book" mean the book is freely available? It's great that the phrase "open source" has been so intuitively understood but to claim it has an obvious literal meaning is just nonsense.
        _gabe_ 4y ago
        I could care less about the terminology people use, but I feel like all your examples would point to the intuitive meaning that "open source" implies. An open door implies you can see what's behind the door, as opposed to a closed door. An open book implies you can see what's inside a book, as opposed to a closed book. Likewise, open source implies that you can see inside the source code, as opposed to closed source. So I think the claim that it has no obvious literal meaning is a bit hyperbolic, but I get where your thinking, since most developers automatically associate "open source" with "free code".
        olddustytrail 4y ago
        Except the phrase "open door" doesn't mean that. It's a door you can walk through, not see through. Perhaps Glass Source would be a more accurate phrase for code you can see but not touch.
  - stonemetal12 4y ago
    If we are going down that road, what does "freely available" mean? To me that would suggest Public Domain only. If you get access to the code under a license, even something as liberal as MIT license, it wasn't "freely available" you had to agree to the license. More to the point with a no commercial clause, it isn't freely available there are restrictions on what you can do with it.
  - kittiepryde 4y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Definitions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Definit... See the provided link. I am used to the source open / source available phrasing, but, I did not know the history behind it.
  - Jon_Lowtek 4y ago
ZetaZero 4y ago
The accepted definition of "open source" includes the ability to modify and redistribute freely. A "non-commercial use" clause limits this
- rthomas6 4y ago
  I see. My mistake then. I edited the OP comment to include an actual open source version what I am attempting to describe.

If the non-commercial use license includes a copy of the source, why isn't that open source?

cercatrova 4y ago

Open source != source available

colinmhayes 4y ago
Disagree. Stop mangling language. Open source literally means the source code is freely available. If that's not good enough you need a new phrase.
- Gud 4y ago
  No, this is not the definition of open source. Open Source was coined by OSI as an alternative (less political) than Free Software.
  - clcaev 4y ago
    Well, it was just as political... it's just the politics favor large companies who were convinced to use and let their employees contribute to projects under a license more akin to the public domain.
- cercatrova 4y ago
  "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:" (omitted here) [0] Crucially, one cannot make their code "for non-commerical use only" and have it still be open source. It must be available for any entity to do with it what they wish. One can of course restrict that, but it would no longer be open source. Source available, perhaps, but not open source. Therefore, ironically, it is you who should not mangle language, not me. [0] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    Taking two words that have a meaning when put together and changing that meaning is mangling language. opensource.org claiming open source means something different from what the phrase literally means is more harmful than helpful. I agree, we need to be able to talk about code that is actually free for all to use. "Open source" is not the way to do that.
    - cercatrova 4y ago
      Sorry, I cannot agree with you. OSI came up with the term "open source," hence I will use it as it is conventionally used, ie via their definition. If you want to literally interpret that, feel free to do so but know that others, such as those commenting on your thread, will not agree with you.
    - olddustytrail 4y ago
      The phrase doesn't literally mean anything. Does the phrase "open door" mean the door is freely available? Does the phrase "open book" mean the book is freely available? It's great that the phrase "open source" has been so intuitively understood but to claim it has an obvious literal meaning is just nonsense.
      - _gabe_ 4y ago
        I could care less about the terminology people use, but I feel like all your examples would point to the intuitive meaning that "open source" implies. An open door implies you can see what's behind the door, as opposed to a closed door. An open book implies you can see what's inside a book, as opposed to a closed book. Likewise, open source implies that you can see inside the source code, as opposed to closed source. So I think the claim that it has no obvious literal meaning is a bit hyperbolic, but I get where your thinking, since most developers automatically associate "open source" with "free code".
        olddustytrail 4y ago
        Except the phrase "open door" doesn't mean that. It's a door you can walk through, not see through. Perhaps Glass Source would be a more accurate phrase for code you can see but not touch.
- stonemetal12 4y ago
  If we are going down that road, what does "freely available" mean? To me that would suggest Public Domain only. If you get access to the code under a license, even something as liberal as MIT license, it wasn't "freely available" you had to agree to the license. More to the point with a no commercial clause, it isn't freely available there are restrictions on what you can do with it.
- kittiepryde 4y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Definitions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Definit... See the provided link. I am used to the source open / source available phrasing, but, I did not know the history behind it.
- Jon_Lowtek 4y ago

ZetaZero 4y ago

The accepted definition of "open source" includes the ability to modify and redistribute freely. A "non-commercial use" clause limits this

rthomas6 4y ago
I see. My mistake then. I edited the OP comment to include an actual open source version what I am attempting to describe.