3 ms·

Not really. A lot of folks, including myself, don't subscribe to the OSI's definition of open-source because it just doesn't match the common usage. Open-sour

Not really. A lot of folks, including myself, don't subscribe to the OSI's definition of open-source because it just doesn't match the common usage. Open-source takes many forms, and source available is just one example.

chungy 4y ago
Considering the term originated with them, it's fair to say they get to dictate what it means.
- SquareWheel 4y ago
  Ah, things would be simpler indeed if words could be dictated.
  - rnd0 4y ago
    And they can be -that's why we have dictionaries. Terms DO have meanings whether contrarians and the argumentative want to acknowledge those meanings or not.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - Karunamon 4y ago
      Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. The meaning of terms outside of specific fields like law is based on consensus, not authority. Merriam-Webster doesn't own the English language, and neither does OSI.
      - mfo4321 4y ago
        [dead]
      - commoner 4y ago
        If you want to look for consensus, there's no better place than Wikipedia. > Open-source software (OSS) is computer software that is released under a license in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software and its source code to anyone and for any purpose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software Citations for this sentence (many more in the full article): - https://books.google.com/books?id=04jG7TTLujoC&pg=PA4#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=04jG7TTLujoC&pg=PA4#v=onep... - https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/ital/article/view/5105 https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/ital/article/view/5105
rnd0 4y ago
If you can't modify and distribute your modifications -it's not open source. Anyone who says different is simply incorrect.
bombolo 4y ago
Well you can just redefine the meaning of arbitrary words, but the result is that nobody understands your attempts at communication. I personally prefer to be effective at communication, so I don't just use words to mean something different than what everyone else thinks.
- xigoi 4y ago
  > I personally prefer to be effective at communication, so I don't just use words to mean something different than what everyone else thinks. And “what everyone else thinks” is mostly different from the OSI definition.
  - bombolo 4y ago
    > And “what everyone else thinks” is mostly different from the OSI definition. Sorry, I meant: "everyone else except 3 or 4 people on ycombinator"
    - xigoi 4y ago
      Ask a random person on GitHub how they would define “open source”. I highly doubt they'll mention the OSI.
      - commoner 4y ago
        GitHub itself uses the OSI definition in its ReadME guide to open source: > Many people think that Open Source simply means availability of the source code of a project, but that does only tell part of the whole story. > The Open Source Initiative (OSI) provides a commonly accepted definition of what constitutes Open Source. To summarize that, in order to be constituted Open Source, >> a work has to allow free redistribution, >> the source code needs to be made available, >> it must be possible to create further works based on it, >> there must be no limitations of who may use the work or for what purpose (so something like "no commercial use" or "no military use" won't fly with Open Source), >> the work must not require an additional license on top of the one it comes with, >> and finally, the license must not depend on a specific distribution format, technology or presence of other works. > So, you see, it goes way beyond "the source code is available", in fact, a whole lot more requirements are stated that must be fulfilled in order for a work to really be considered Open Source. https://github.com/readme/guides/open-source-licensing https://github.com/readme/guides/open-source-licensing Also, GitHub's most starred repo is freeCodeCamp (359k stars - https://github.com/freeCodeCamp/freeCodeCamp https://github.com/freeCodeCamp/freeCodeCamp). Linked right in the repo's README, freeCodeCamp defines open source as: > Open Source Software is code that is publicly available for people to view, modify, and share. https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/what-is-open-source-software-explained-in-plain-english/ https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/what-is-open-source-softwa...

chungy 4y ago

Considering the term originated with them, it's fair to say they get to dictate what it means.

SquareWheel 4y ago
Ah, things would be simpler indeed if words could be dictated.
- rnd0 4y ago
  And they can be -that's why we have dictionaries. Terms DO have meanings whether contrarians and the argumentative want to acknowledge those meanings or not.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Karunamon 4y ago
    Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. The meaning of terms outside of specific fields like law is based on consensus, not authority. Merriam-Webster doesn't own the English language, and neither does OSI.
    - mfo4321 4y ago
      [dead]
    - commoner 4y ago
      If you want to look for consensus, there's no better place than Wikipedia. > Open-source software (OSS) is computer software that is released under a license in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software and its source code to anyone and for any purpose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software Citations for this sentence (many more in the full article): - https://books.google.com/books?id=04jG7TTLujoC&pg=PA4#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=04jG7TTLujoC&pg=PA4#v=onep... - https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/ital/article/view/5105 https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/ital/article/view/5105

rnd0 4y ago

If you can't modify and distribute your modifications -it's not open source. Anyone who says different is simply incorrect.

bombolo 4y ago

Well you can just redefine the meaning of arbitrary words, but the result is that nobody understands your attempts at communication. I personally prefer to be effective at communication, so I don't just use words to mean something different than what everyone else thinks.

xigoi 4y ago
> I personally prefer to be effective at communication, so I don't just use words to mean something different than what everyone else thinks. And “what everyone else thinks” is mostly different from the OSI definition.
- bombolo 4y ago
  > And “what everyone else thinks” is mostly different from the OSI definition. Sorry, I meant: "everyone else except 3 or 4 people on ycombinator"
  - xigoi 4y ago
    Ask a random person on GitHub how they would define “open source”. I highly doubt they'll mention the OSI.
    - commoner 4y ago
      GitHub itself uses the OSI definition in its ReadME guide to open source: > Many people think that Open Source simply means availability of the source code of a project, but that does only tell part of the whole story. > The Open Source Initiative (OSI) provides a commonly accepted definition of what constitutes Open Source. To summarize that, in order to be constituted Open Source, >> a work has to allow free redistribution, >> the source code needs to be made available, >> it must be possible to create further works based on it, >> there must be no limitations of who may use the work or for what purpose (so something like "no commercial use" or "no military use" won't fly with Open Source), >> the work must not require an additional license on top of the one it comes with, >> and finally, the license must not depend on a specific distribution format, technology or presence of other works. > So, you see, it goes way beyond "the source code is available", in fact, a whole lot more requirements are stated that must be fulfilled in order for a work to really be considered Open Source. https://github.com/readme/guides/open-source-licensing https://github.com/readme/guides/open-source-licensing Also, GitHub's most starred repo is freeCodeCamp (359k stars - https://github.com/freeCodeCamp/freeCodeCamp https://github.com/freeCodeCamp/freeCodeCamp). Linked right in the repo's README, freeCodeCamp defines open source as: > Open Source Software is code that is publicly available for people to view, modify, and share. https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/what-is-open-source-software-explained-in-plain-english/ https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/what-is-open-source-softwa...