4 ms·

> 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 o

> 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
      There's not a single occurrence of "open source" in your first link. Actually, there's no example of any actual software at all on this page. Just some policy for posting software that tells people to license their code and to respect the license of the work they use. I agree that it does not technically require open source, only "publicly available" source code. And I'm not going to dig the forum to find some actual example. I know source available programs with a license restrictive enough to be proprietary exist. Here's one: CompCert [1] By the way, its non commercial license itself claim claims it is non-free [2] and the download page claims it's not free software. Even if it is "free" (gratis) to use in a non commercial setting. That's software with source code available. Source-available software. It's not open source. And I also know freeware (gratis, proprietary software) without any available source code exist. But a source-available program that pretends to be open source is yet to be seen. CompCert certainly don't advertises itself as open source. Because it's not! [1] https://compcert.org/ https://compcert.org/ [2] https://compcert.org/doc/LICENSE.txt https://compcert.org/doc/LICENSE.txt [3] https://compcert.org/download.html https://compcert.org/download.html

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
    There's not a single occurrence of "open source" in your first link. Actually, there's no example of any actual software at all on this page. Just some policy for posting software that tells people to license their code and to respect the license of the work they use. I agree that it does not technically require open source, only "publicly available" source code. And I'm not going to dig the forum to find some actual example. I know source available programs with a license restrictive enough to be proprietary exist. Here's one: CompCert [1] By the way, its non commercial license itself claim claims it is non-free [2] and the download page claims it's not free software. Even if it is "free" (gratis) to use in a non commercial setting. That's software with source code available. Source-available software. It's not open source. And I also know freeware (gratis, proprietary software) without any available source code exist. But a source-available program that pretends to be open source is yet to be seen. CompCert certainly don't advertises itself as open source. Because it's not! [1] https://compcert.org/ https://compcert.org/ [2] https://compcert.org/doc/LICENSE.txt https://compcert.org/doc/LICENSE.txt [3] https://compcert.org/download.html https://compcert.org/download.html