5 ms·

The way I see it, it's very simple: If I can view the source code, it's open source. Open source has nothing to do with whether something is free-as-in-beer or

The way I see it, it's very simple: If I can view the source code, it's open source. Open source has nothing to do with whether something is free-as-in-beer or commercial, whether something is free-as-in-libre or proprietary, or whatever else. Open source simply means source code that is open for public viewing, all other rights reserved unless declared otherwise. Obligatory IANAL, don't take legal advice from random internet comments.

singpolyma3 3y ago
Except that we literally have a different term for that: "shared source"
- JohnFen 3y ago
  This is the first and only time I've heard that term used.
  - palata 3y ago
    There is a first for everything ;). It's also called "source-available": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      "Source available" is the term I know. But I love learning new things! It makes me just a little bit less ignorant.
  - orra 3y ago
    Microsoft used it a lot, before they pivoted to somewhat embracing open source.
JohnFen 3y ago
I understand your definition. The problem is that not everyone agrees with it. This is a great example of why I don't use the term -- there is no longer a real consensus on what it means, exactly.
- cxr 3y ago
  > The problem is that not everyone agrees with it [...] there is no longer a real consensus on what it means The term lacks consensus in the way that evolution lacks consensus. Overwhelmingly, it's those least in a position to disagree stating that they disagree.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    True enough among people who care about these things (regardless of what their stance is). But the majority of devs out there aren't so invested in this stuff and will just use the term in the way they've heard it used. If they've heard it used in a loose fashion, that can lead to confusion. I can't fault those devs for that.
    - cxr 3y ago
      I'd wager that the "majority of devs out there [who] aren't so invested in this stuff" aren't invested enough that they will, upon being corrected, state that they disagree with the historical definition, however (versus just being sloppy/careless when using it, i.e. out of ignorance in the original instance).
- palata 3y ago
  I think that the OSI definition has a large consensus: https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    The OSI definition is the only correct definition, yes. But how many devs have ever actually read it?
fn-mote 3y ago
> If I can view the source code, it's open source The whole point of this discussion is that this term is contentious. Your comment reads to me as dismissive of the arguments/context/nuance without engaging in a dialog. Especially as a reply to the GP who essentially says "I stopped using the term open source because it was problematic."
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  I agree "open source" has become a problematic term, thanks to people who want to throw political dogma onto an otherwise useful term. I've seen plenty of open source software published under restrictive licenses, and closed source software published under free-as-in-beer and/or free-as-in-libre licenses. Open/closed source seriously has nothing to do with payment terms, usage rights (aside from viewing the source code, obviously), and whatever else. It is very counterproductive that people keep trying to conflate what open/closed source means.
  - jraph 3y ago
    > I've seen plenty [...] You keep saying this, yet you haven't provided any example. I don't believe you, happy to change my mind after you provide some examples. And I can't make any sense out of your closed source software that would be published under a free as in libre license. Closed and libre are pretty much opposite. I mean no disrespect, but you are the one conflating everything with everything.
    - Dalewyn 3y ago
      One example of open source code with restrictive licensing that comes to mind are Kerbal Space Program mods published on Kerbal Space Program's website.[1] Kerbal Space Program mandates that any mods published on their website also publicly disclose their full source code so that players can audit them prior to execution. However, all other rights are at the discretion of the respective authors and many of them use licensing terms that restrict use and redistribution. CDisplay[2] comes to mind as an example of free (as in beer) closed source software. I stand by my view that "free" source code and "open" source are two separate concepts that should not be conflated. [1]: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/154851-add-on-posting-rules-april-13-2021/ https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/154851... [2]: https://www.cdisplay.me/ https://www.cdisplay.me/
jraph 3y ago
You have it backwards: if it's open source, then you can see the code. This remains true even in cases people are being sloppy with the term. Open source is whatever follows the open source definition. No more, no less. What you are talking about is source available. This is the only designation that is not confusing and that is uncontroversial. I haven't seen any half-serious project use "open source" that does not actually use an OSI-approved license. But I agree with the parent commenter. Do check out what is the actual license in any case, and feel free to avoid the term open source altogether if you think it confuses people. As this HN thread seems to show, the term does seem to confuse people indeed. You can use free software, or even "libre" if you find free software confusing. Or FLOSS.
- grt_thr 3y ago
  [dead]
hristov 3y ago
Viewing the source code does not give you much rights. In most cases it probably wont even give you the right to view the source code, because if you do not have the right to compile and run the code yourself, it is quite possible and actually likely that the person giving you the source code will not give you the correct source code. So if that is the acceptable term for open source it does not mean much. It seems to me that historically the meaning of open source implies much more than being able to view the code. It implies the right to compile the code, to run the compiled code, to make changes, etc.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  Also, I sell some libraries that are specifically not open sourced. But you know what people who license my libraries get along with the binaries? The source code. What they don't get is the right to redistribute the source code or the libraries themselves except in the form of having been linked to an application. So, not open source.
  - hristov 3y ago
    I don't think the right to distribute should be implied in the phrase open source. A lot of open source licenses include a right to distribute but there usually has been a small but well known minority that does not. So I would say that if you allow your clients to view the code, change it and compile it, but prohibit distribution you still have open source.
    - bityard 3y ago
      > I don't think the right to distribute should be implied in the phrase open source. Oh, but it very much is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_license
      - Dalewyn 3y ago
        That is a textbook example of conflating "free" and "open", the article even immediately goes on to specify "free and open" source, not just "open" source because it can't hide the fact it's conflating the two separate concepts into one. The original inspiration for all that is the Debian Free Software Guidelines[1] and The Free Software Definition[2], emphasis mine, because it concerns usage and distribution rights among others. According to those guidelines and definition, free source code must be open. However, the opposite, that open source code must be free (whether beer or libre), is never stated nor implied. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guideline... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition
cxr 3y ago
> The way I see it, it's very simple: If I can view the source code, it's open source. By that definition, Harry Potter is open source. As is every Star Wars novelization, New York Times article... I'm looking forward to your fork of your favorite open source franchise.
RobotToaster 3y ago
>If I can view the source code, it's open source. The windows source code was leaked several years ago, so obviously windows is open source.
palata 3y ago
I agree that it is very simple, but I believe that you should not make up your own definition (respectfully) :). What you describe is "source-available": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software Open source implies stuff like free redistribution and derived works (among others): https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/ Free/Libre implies open source, but goes one step further, implying freedom for the end-user. If I license my library as LGPL (for instance), I am saying that I want the end-users to be able to read and modify my library in the products they buy. And therefore if you want to build a product using my LGPL library, then you must make sure that your users can do that with my library.

singpolyma3 3y ago

Except that we literally have a different term for that: "shared source"

JohnFen 3y ago
This is the first and only time I've heard that term used.
- palata 3y ago
  There is a first for everything ;). It's also called "source-available": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    "Source available" is the term I know. But I love learning new things! It makes me just a little bit less ignorant.
- orra 3y ago
  Microsoft used it a lot, before they pivoted to somewhat embracing open source.

JohnFen 3y ago

I understand your definition. The problem is that not everyone agrees with it. This is a great example of why I don't use the term -- there is no longer a real consensus on what it means, exactly.

cxr 3y ago
> The problem is that not everyone agrees with it [...] there is no longer a real consensus on what it means The term lacks consensus in the way that evolution lacks consensus. Overwhelmingly, it's those least in a position to disagree stating that they disagree.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  True enough among people who care about these things (regardless of what their stance is). But the majority of devs out there aren't so invested in this stuff and will just use the term in the way they've heard it used. If they've heard it used in a loose fashion, that can lead to confusion. I can't fault those devs for that.
  - cxr 3y ago
    I'd wager that the "majority of devs out there [who] aren't so invested in this stuff" aren't invested enough that they will, upon being corrected, state that they disagree with the historical definition, however (versus just being sloppy/careless when using it, i.e. out of ignorance in the original instance).
palata 3y ago
I think that the OSI definition has a large consensus: https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/
- JohnFen 3y ago
  The OSI definition is the only correct definition, yes. But how many devs have ever actually read it?

fn-mote 3y ago

> If I can view the source code, it's open source The whole point of this discussion is that this term is contentious. Your comment reads to me as dismissive of the arguments/context/nuance without engaging in a dialog. Especially as a reply to the GP who essentially says "I stopped using the term open source because it was problematic."

Dalewyn 3y ago
I agree "open source" has become a problematic term, thanks to people who want to throw political dogma onto an otherwise useful term. I've seen plenty of open source software published under restrictive licenses, and closed source software published under free-as-in-beer and/or free-as-in-libre licenses. Open/closed source seriously has nothing to do with payment terms, usage rights (aside from viewing the source code, obviously), and whatever else. It is very counterproductive that people keep trying to conflate what open/closed source means.
- jraph 3y ago
  > I've seen plenty [...] You keep saying this, yet you haven't provided any example. I don't believe you, happy to change my mind after you provide some examples. And I can't make any sense out of your closed source software that would be published under a free as in libre license. Closed and libre are pretty much opposite. I mean no disrespect, but you are the one conflating everything with everything.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    One example of open source code with restrictive licensing that comes to mind are Kerbal Space Program mods published on Kerbal Space Program's website.[1] Kerbal Space Program mandates that any mods published on their website also publicly disclose their full source code so that players can audit them prior to execution. However, all other rights are at the discretion of the respective authors and many of them use licensing terms that restrict use and redistribution. CDisplay[2] comes to mind as an example of free (as in beer) closed source software. I stand by my view that "free" source code and "open" source are two separate concepts that should not be conflated. [1]: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/154851-add-on-posting-rules-april-13-2021/ https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/154851... [2]: https://www.cdisplay.me/ https://www.cdisplay.me/

jraph 3y ago

You have it backwards: if it's open source, then you can see the code. This remains true even in cases people are being sloppy with the term. Open source is whatever follows the open source definition. No more, no less. What you are talking about is source available. This is the only designation that is not confusing and that is uncontroversial. I haven't seen any half-serious project use "open source" that does not actually use an OSI-approved license. But I agree with the parent commenter. Do check out what is the actual license in any case, and feel free to avoid the term open source altogether if you think it confuses people. As this HN thread seems to show, the term does seem to confuse people indeed. You can use free software, or even "libre" if you find free software confusing. Or FLOSS.

grt_thr 3y ago
[dead]

hristov 3y ago

Viewing the source code does not give you much rights. In most cases it probably wont even give you the right to view the source code, because if you do not have the right to compile and run the code yourself, it is quite possible and actually likely that the person giving you the source code will not give you the correct source code. So if that is the acceptable term for open source it does not mean much. It seems to me that historically the meaning of open source implies much more than being able to view the code. It implies the right to compile the code, to run the compiled code, to make changes, etc.

JohnFen 3y ago
Also, I sell some libraries that are specifically not open sourced. But you know what people who license my libraries get along with the binaries? The source code. What they don't get is the right to redistribute the source code or the libraries themselves except in the form of having been linked to an application. So, not open source.
- hristov 3y ago
  I don't think the right to distribute should be implied in the phrase open source. A lot of open source licenses include a right to distribute but there usually has been a small but well known minority that does not. So I would say that if you allow your clients to view the code, change it and compile it, but prohibit distribution you still have open source.
  - bityard 3y ago
    > I don't think the right to distribute should be implied in the phrase open source. Oh, but it very much is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_license
    - Dalewyn 3y ago
      That is a textbook example of conflating "free" and "open", the article even immediately goes on to specify "free and open" source, not just "open" source because it can't hide the fact it's conflating the two separate concepts into one. The original inspiration for all that is the Debian Free Software Guidelines[1] and The Free Software Definition[2], emphasis mine, because it concerns usage and distribution rights among others. According to those guidelines and definition, free source code must be open. However, the opposite, that open source code must be free (whether beer or libre), is never stated nor implied. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guideline... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition

cxr 3y ago

> The way I see it, it's very simple: If I can view the source code, it's open source. By that definition, Harry Potter is open source. As is every Star Wars novelization, New York Times article... I'm looking forward to your fork of your favorite open source franchise.

RobotToaster 3y ago

>If I can view the source code, it's open source. The windows source code was leaked several years ago, so obviously windows is open source.

palata 3y ago

I agree that it is very simple, but I believe that you should not make up your own definition (respectfully) :). What you describe is "source-available": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software Open source implies stuff like free redistribution and derived works (among others): https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/ Free/Libre implies open source, but goes one step further, implying freedom for the end-user. If I license my library as LGPL (for instance), I am saying that I want the end-users to be able to read and modify my library in the products they buy. And therefore if you want to build a product using my LGPL library, then you must make sure that your users can do that with my library.