3 ms·

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 hav

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
      - jraph 3y ago
        > goes on to specify "free and open" No, it does not. It mentions "free and open-source software" (FOSS), which is a phrase in itself that cannot be split the way you did. Just go follow the link you are referring to! [1] > Free and open-source software (FOSS) is a term used to refer to groups of software consisting of both free software and open-source software Free and open are vague adjectives and it's a shame because it does not help at all, but when used in "open source" and "free software", they have a specific meaning. Gratis (non-free) software is referred to by "freeware". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software
        Dalewyn 3y ago
        No, "free" source code and "open" source code are two different, distinct concepts[1][2]. Conflating one with the other is counterproductive and inhibits understanding of the concepts concerned. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html [2]: “Free and Open Source Software” is misleading in another way: it suggests that “free and open source” names a single point of view, rather than mentioning two different ones. This conceptualization of the field is an obstacle to understanding the fact that free software and open source are different political positions that disagree fundamentally.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > I don't think the right to distribute should be implied in the phrase open source. You can disagree that it should be included in the definition, but that doesn't change the fact that it specifically is included in the definition.
Dalewyn 3y ago
Viewing the source code grants you the right to know what gets executed on your computer before the fact. Anyone who knows anything about computers should understand that is a tremendously important power and right. Open source is one way to obtain and exercise that right as an end-user. As an example: When people say Intel Management Engine is a backdoor, it's because the code concerned cannot be publicly viewed (aka closed source) for auditing. Nobody would have a problem with Intel Management Engine if the source code was open for public viewing, regardless the other actual license terms. Licensing also cannot, as a matter of simple practicality, police what you do strictly within the privacy of your own home. Even if the license forbids it, if you want to compile the source code or otherwise somehow use it strictly for your own personal and private use there's nothing stopping you. If false or incomplete source code is provided, that is by its very nature not open source because the source code was obviously not opened to you (and everyone else) for viewing. It's why "FLOSS" and "FOSS" as terms exist, open source is a separate question from the question of free-as-in-beer or free-as-in-libre.

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
    - jraph 3y ago
      > goes on to specify "free and open" No, it does not. It mentions "free and open-source software" (FOSS), which is a phrase in itself that cannot be split the way you did. Just go follow the link you are referring to! [1] > Free and open-source software (FOSS) is a term used to refer to groups of software consisting of both free software and open-source software Free and open are vague adjectives and it's a shame because it does not help at all, but when used in "open source" and "free software", they have a specific meaning. Gratis (non-free) software is referred to by "freeware". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software
      - Dalewyn 3y ago
        No, "free" source code and "open" source code are two different, distinct concepts[1][2]. Conflating one with the other is counterproductive and inhibits understanding of the concepts concerned. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html [2]: “Free and Open Source Software” is misleading in another way: it suggests that “free and open source” names a single point of view, rather than mentioning two different ones. This conceptualization of the field is an obstacle to understanding the fact that free software and open source are different political positions that disagree fundamentally.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > I don't think the right to distribute should be implied in the phrase open source. You can disagree that it should be included in the definition, but that doesn't change the fact that it specifically is included in the definition.

Dalewyn 3y ago

Viewing the source code grants you the right to know what gets executed on your computer before the fact. Anyone who knows anything about computers should understand that is a tremendously important power and right. Open source is one way to obtain and exercise that right as an end-user. As an example: When people say Intel Management Engine is a backdoor, it's because the code concerned cannot be publicly viewed (aka closed source) for auditing. Nobody would have a problem with Intel Management Engine if the source code was open for public viewing, regardless the other actual license terms. Licensing also cannot, as a matter of simple practicality, police what you do strictly within the privacy of your own home. Even if the license forbids it, if you want to compile the source code or otherwise somehow use it strictly for your own personal and private use there's nothing stopping you. If false or incomplete source code is provided, that is by its very nature not open source because the source code was obviously not opened to you (and everyone else) for viewing. It's why "FLOSS" and "FOSS" as terms exist, open source is a separate question from the question of free-as-in-beer or free-as-in-libre.