4 ms·

> And without fail, people will howl ITS NOT OPEN SOURCE. They ignore that the code is on GitHub, and as long as you're not trying to make money with it, then d

by ilyt 3y ago

> And without fail, people will howl ITS NOT OPEN SOURCE. They ignore that the code is on GitHub, and as long as you're not trying to make money with it, then do whatever you want with it Could just... not say that it is open source when it is not. The widely used definition of open is not limiting the usage of the code, not "just" showing the source code. "All rights reserved" code is still all rights reserved even if you put the code out there. > I don't like the idea of companies getting code for free and giving nothing back. Doesn't GPL/AGPL prevent that enough?

LadyCailin 3y ago
To me, “open source” means you can see the source code. “Free software” means you don’t have to pay for the binary. “Libre software” means you can do what you like with the software. The terms get conflated, but it seems to me that when you want to argue semantics, these are quite clear definitions.
- mook 3y ago
  My understanding is that "you can see the source code" is typically labeled "source available". "Don't have to pay for the binary" is sometimes "free as in beer", or if you're using floppy disks, "freeware" (though that term seems to have fallen out of use).
  - LordDragonfang 3y ago
    >typically labeled "source available" I have literally only seen Free Software folks claiming this in similar discussions to this, and have not once seen that term used in practice (I'm sure you can find at least one example, but it's far from being common). The typical term for this is still "open source" whether it technically conforms to the OSI definition or not.
    - ilyt 3y ago
      Yes, the people who created invented what open source is are the folks claiming that, how bizzare /s And corporations that try to get some free marketing and code I guess. The term is clear - lack of limitations of usage for the code makes it open source. If you put any limitations, whether noncommercial, "not for evil" etc. it stops being open. It's not hard. If you close a door, it's not open anymore.
      - LordDragonfang 3y ago
        > lack of limitations of usage for the code makes it open source. Except the GPL has a huge limitation (can only be used in GPL code) which "closes the door" to a lot of uses, and yet it's the gold standard.
    - palata 3y ago
      > The typical term for this is still "open source" whether it technically conforms to the OSI definition or not. Well, the typical term coming from people who don't understand the terms. That's why there is a need to explain them, repeatedly.
- rhn_mk1 3y ago
  They might be clear, but they are not universally accepted. Ultimately, usage makes the definition.
  - ilyt 3y ago
    And doing that should be condemned, especially that in this case it is mostly to further corporate interest. What next, gotta call Windows "open source"?
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      > gotta call Windows "open source"? Just wait. That's coming.
  - palata 3y ago
    I am fine with usage making the definition if that's not destroying the concepts. People who use "open source" for "source-available" don't seem to have another word for what is actually called "open source". What does that mean? Do they just use whatever code they find online the way they want? They surely use open source code, so somehow they should have a need for a word that design open source software.
- josephcsible 3y ago
  > To me, “open source” means you can see the source code. To me, "sugar" means cane sugar, so I should be able to call food that's full of HFCS "sugar free".
  - toast0 3y ago
    I mean, might as well go with if you don't have to pay for the sugar, you can call it "sugar free".
  - ilyt 3y ago
    Your ignorance is not everyone's else problem and the ignorant should not be catered for
- ilyt 3y ago
  It's not to the law. The fact you see the source doesn't mean you can just take and use it. > “Libre software” means you can do what you like with the software. The terms get conflated, but it seems to me that when you want to argue semantics, these are quite clear definitions. The term was perfectly clear before people like you tried to conflate it by throwing bullshit terms like "libre software"
- pessimizer 3y ago
  To me, "Open Source" means an OSI-approved license, and "Free Software" means a FSF-approved license. Any redefinition of these (quite strange) terms means that somebody is trying to make money piggybacking off of the goodwill that FOSS has generated. If your source is available, tell people that your source is available. If you're not going to charge for your software, call it "free software" if you want to confuse people, say it's available for free if you don't. Otherwise I'm going to start selling apples that are 30% plastic as organic.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > To me, "Open Source" means an OSI-approved license, and "Free Software" means a FSF-approved license. I mostly agree, although I don't think they have to use the official licenses to qualify for the terms. Your license does have to adhere to the underlying principles those official licenses are built on, though! And this is where things fall down a bit, because too many people don't understand that these terms have very specific meanings and end up misusing them.
    - palata 3y ago
      > too many people don't understand that these terms have very specific meanings and end up misusing them. Agreed. But the solution is to educate them :).
      - JohnFen 3y ago
        It is, yes. And here is where I'm a bit selfish -- after many years of doing that and ending up in countless emotional arguments with people who want the terms to mean things they objectively do not mean, I've grown weary of the fight. That, in the end, is why I've stopped doing that. I don't say that thinking it's the right thing. I say that just out of plain, weary, honesty.
- palata 3y ago
  Respectfully, I think you are wrong. "Source-available" means that you can see the source code: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software. If I make a library, publish the source code online, and do NOT add a license, then you are not allowed to use it. "Open-source" means more, including (among others) free redistribution and derived works: https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/. If I make a library an publish the source code under an open source license (permissive or not), then you can use it under the conditions of that license. "Free/Libre" means that the end-user keeps the open source rights, i.e. the rights to view and modify the free/libre code running in the product they bought. If you build a product by assembling permissive-licensed libraries, you can sell it as proprietary code (with some attribution). So your customers have somehow "lost" some of the open source rights you got. If you build a product by assembling copyleft-licensed libraries, then you need to provide those libraries to your customers; they kept their rights.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
NotYourLawyer 3y ago
It is open source. It’s just not free. There’s been a lot of effort to conflate those terms over the years.
- josephcsible 3y ago
  Are you saying the Open Source Definition isn't the definition of open source?
  - NotYourLawyer 3y ago
    https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/ I’m saying that there is a large amount of software out there that calls itself open source but that doesn’t meet these terms.
    - jraph 3y ago
      I have never run into such software and it would be wrong to do this. Open source is a well understood and non-controversial designation. If you are a developer you have run into the OSD for sure and therefore, even if you don't agree with this use of the expression, if your goal is to be clear and understood, you'd be a fool to call your software open source if it does not use an OSI approved license because it would be confusing and you'd be aware of this fact. The usual qualifier for software with available source code is source-available. There's no doubt about it. We really don't need even more confusion around the terms of free software and open source than we already have.
    - ilyt 3y ago
      ...like ? Where is that "large amount"? The two I remember (Mongo and Elastic) were shat on for their license change and fake open source.
      - jraph 3y ago
        Yes, the name of their license, Server-Side Public License, is a bit confusing because of the Public License part that sounds like the name of an open source license, but that's all. IIRC their communication at the time was somewhat confusing too, but the problem is solved now. Assuming no evil intents, MongoDB might have been confused themselves, genuinely thinking the SSPL was actually open source, since they tried to submit it for approval to the OSI. At the time it was unclear the license was not open source, even if some people immediately noticed issues with it.
majormajor 3y ago
It's not clear here if the poster you're replying to claims it's "open source" or if it's just source code on Github with a non-commercial license itself that offends some.

by ilyt 3y ago

LadyCailin 3y ago

To me, “open source” means you can see the source code. “Free software” means you don’t have to pay for the binary. “Libre software” means you can do what you like with the software. The terms get conflated, but it seems to me that when you want to argue semantics, these are quite clear definitions.

mook 3y ago
My understanding is that "you can see the source code" is typically labeled "source available". "Don't have to pay for the binary" is sometimes "free as in beer", or if you're using floppy disks, "freeware" (though that term seems to have fallen out of use).
- LordDragonfang 3y ago
  >typically labeled "source available" I have literally only seen Free Software folks claiming this in similar discussions to this, and have not once seen that term used in practice (I'm sure you can find at least one example, but it's far from being common). The typical term for this is still "open source" whether it technically conforms to the OSI definition or not.
  - ilyt 3y ago
    Yes, the people who created invented what open source is are the folks claiming that, how bizzare /s And corporations that try to get some free marketing and code I guess. The term is clear - lack of limitations of usage for the code makes it open source. If you put any limitations, whether noncommercial, "not for evil" etc. it stops being open. It's not hard. If you close a door, it's not open anymore.
    - LordDragonfang 3y ago
      > lack of limitations of usage for the code makes it open source. Except the GPL has a huge limitation (can only be used in GPL code) which "closes the door" to a lot of uses, and yet it's the gold standard.
  - palata 3y ago
    > The typical term for this is still "open source" whether it technically conforms to the OSI definition or not. Well, the typical term coming from people who don't understand the terms. That's why there is a need to explain them, repeatedly.
rhn_mk1 3y ago
They might be clear, but they are not universally accepted. Ultimately, usage makes the definition.
- ilyt 3y ago
  And doing that should be condemned, especially that in this case it is mostly to further corporate interest. What next, gotta call Windows "open source"?
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > gotta call Windows "open source"? Just wait. That's coming.
- palata 3y ago
  I am fine with usage making the definition if that's not destroying the concepts. People who use "open source" for "source-available" don't seem to have another word for what is actually called "open source". What does that mean? Do they just use whatever code they find online the way they want? They surely use open source code, so somehow they should have a need for a word that design open source software.
josephcsible 3y ago
> To me, “open source” means you can see the source code. To me, "sugar" means cane sugar, so I should be able to call food that's full of HFCS "sugar free".
- toast0 3y ago
  I mean, might as well go with if you don't have to pay for the sugar, you can call it "sugar free".
- ilyt 3y ago
  Your ignorance is not everyone's else problem and the ignorant should not be catered for
ilyt 3y ago
It's not to the law. The fact you see the source doesn't mean you can just take and use it. > “Libre software” means you can do what you like with the software. The terms get conflated, but it seems to me that when you want to argue semantics, these are quite clear definitions. The term was perfectly clear before people like you tried to conflate it by throwing bullshit terms like "libre software"
pessimizer 3y ago
To me, "Open Source" means an OSI-approved license, and "Free Software" means a FSF-approved license. Any redefinition of these (quite strange) terms means that somebody is trying to make money piggybacking off of the goodwill that FOSS has generated. If your source is available, tell people that your source is available. If you're not going to charge for your software, call it "free software" if you want to confuse people, say it's available for free if you don't. Otherwise I'm going to start selling apples that are 30% plastic as organic.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > To me, "Open Source" means an OSI-approved license, and "Free Software" means a FSF-approved license. I mostly agree, although I don't think they have to use the official licenses to qualify for the terms. Your license does have to adhere to the underlying principles those official licenses are built on, though! And this is where things fall down a bit, because too many people don't understand that these terms have very specific meanings and end up misusing them.
  - palata 3y ago
    > too many people don't understand that these terms have very specific meanings and end up misusing them. Agreed. But the solution is to educate them :).
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      It is, yes. And here is where I'm a bit selfish -- after many years of doing that and ending up in countless emotional arguments with people who want the terms to mean things they objectively do not mean, I've grown weary of the fight. That, in the end, is why I've stopped doing that. I don't say that thinking it's the right thing. I say that just out of plain, weary, honesty.
palata 3y ago
Respectfully, I think you are wrong. "Source-available" means that you can see the source code: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software. If I make a library, publish the source code online, and do NOT add a license, then you are not allowed to use it. "Open-source" means more, including (among others) free redistribution and derived works: https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/. If I make a library an publish the source code under an open source license (permissive or not), then you can use it under the conditions of that license. "Free/Libre" means that the end-user keeps the open source rights, i.e. the rights to view and modify the free/libre code running in the product they bought. If you build a product by assembling permissive-licensed libraries, you can sell it as proprietary code (with some attribution). So your customers have somehow "lost" some of the open source rights you got. If you build a product by assembling copyleft-licensed libraries, then you need to provide those libraries to your customers; they kept their rights.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

NotYourLawyer 3y ago

It is open source. It’s just not free. There’s been a lot of effort to conflate those terms over the years.

josephcsible 3y ago
Are you saying the Open Source Definition isn't the definition of open source?
- NotYourLawyer 3y ago
  https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/ I’m saying that there is a large amount of software out there that calls itself open source but that doesn’t meet these terms.
  - jraph 3y ago
    I have never run into such software and it would be wrong to do this. Open source is a well understood and non-controversial designation. If you are a developer you have run into the OSD for sure and therefore, even if you don't agree with this use of the expression, if your goal is to be clear and understood, you'd be a fool to call your software open source if it does not use an OSI approved license because it would be confusing and you'd be aware of this fact. The usual qualifier for software with available source code is source-available. There's no doubt about it. We really don't need even more confusion around the terms of free software and open source than we already have.
  - ilyt 3y ago
    ...like ? Where is that "large amount"? The two I remember (Mongo and Elastic) were shat on for their license change and fake open source.
    - jraph 3y ago
      Yes, the name of their license, Server-Side Public License, is a bit confusing because of the Public License part that sounds like the name of an open source license, but that's all. IIRC their communication at the time was somewhat confusing too, but the problem is solved now. Assuming no evil intents, MongoDB might have been confused themselves, genuinely thinking the SSPL was actually open source, since they tried to submit it for approval to the OSI. At the time it was unclear the license was not open source, even if some people immediately noticed issues with it.

majormajor 3y ago

It's not clear here if the poster you're replying to claims it's "open source" or if it's just source code on Github with a non-commercial license itself that offends some.