5 ms·

I don't really care what that organization says. The most obvious meaning of that phrase is that the source code is publicly visible. If someone wants to descri

I don't really care what that organization says. The most obvious meaning of that phrase is that the source code is publicly visible. If someone wants to describe a particular license, then they should refer to it or the category of license (e.g. copy-left or permissive). I'm actually happy that companies like Epic would expose their source code (I'm taking GP on faith that they were accurate). One thing I'm afraid of is the idea of losing access to software that I love because the company goes defunct. I wish this practice was more common even if they don't wish to permit free usage. It's probably only enforceable on a small subset of software though.

jraph 3y ago
> The most obvious meaning is that the source code is publicly visible It's not, really. Words don't live in a vacuum. Their meaning is determined by their actual usage, which is depends on the cultural context, which is itself determined by history. "Open source" started being used when the Open Source movement started, to mean what the OSD means. Before, the phrase was not used. You can't rewrite history and you can't decide for everyone the meaning of a word because it's obvious for you the way you decide. It's not just "that organization". It's the whole computing world. That organization took the Debian Free Software Guidelines, called it the Open Source Definition and called software related to it "open source"... and the whole world picked up this usage. There's nothing you can do about it, history played out like this. The phrase has always had this meaning. Maybe the meaning of the phrase will change over time, but that hasn't happened yet and I don't see this happening in the next years too. What you are expressing is not facts. It's wishes and your taste. Depending on the context, the actual license used is a technicality and you don't want to be this precise. You may need to express the broader concept / context. Open source is recognized more broadly by non-technical people. Try mentioning the MIT or the GPL license instead, you are in for a fun ride. I don't see the point in actively trying to destroy this usage. Now we could discuss on pushing "free software" vs "open source" but this is another topic. I'm saying all this as a free software proponent. I don't quite like it that the OSI came and cast a shadow on the free software movement and pushed for the "open source" phrase. Open source is good but the values pushed by the free software movement is really what we ought to spread IMO (and FWIW, even Bruce Perens, one of the founders of the open source movement and the writer of the OSD, agrees with me [1]). But again, it is what it is, history has been playing out this way. About your second paragraph, I mostly agree with you, but precisely open source / free software is what you really need for this. Source-available is a step in the right direction, but even if the company goes defunct, you still have no rights to adapt the code to make it work on future systems unless an explicit clause tells you otherwise. You can decide to do it anyway but you expose yourself to legal risks. So if it's important to you, you should advocate for open source / free software specifically, and not merely source availability. And you need to use the right words the way people understand them for this because the subtleties matter. [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/02/msg01641.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/02/msg01641.html
palata 3y ago
> I don't really care what that organization says. The most obvious meaning of that phrase is that the source code is publicly visible. That's an interesting point of view. Do you apply that for everything? "I don't need a dictionary: when I don't know a word, I just choose to understand it the way I find obvious, and hope that the rest of the world will follow me".

jraph 3y ago

> The most obvious meaning is that the source code is publicly visible It's not, really. Words don't live in a vacuum. Their meaning is determined by their actual usage, which is depends on the cultural context, which is itself determined by history. "Open source" started being used when the Open Source movement started, to mean what the OSD means. Before, the phrase was not used. You can't rewrite history and you can't decide for everyone the meaning of a word because it's obvious for you the way you decide. It's not just "that organization". It's the whole computing world. That organization took the Debian Free Software Guidelines, called it the Open Source Definition and called software related to it "open source"... and the whole world picked up this usage. There's nothing you can do about it, history played out like this. The phrase has always had this meaning. Maybe the meaning of the phrase will change over time, but that hasn't happened yet and I don't see this happening in the next years too. What you are expressing is not facts. It's wishes and your taste. Depending on the context, the actual license used is a technicality and you don't want to be this precise. You may need to express the broader concept / context. Open source is recognized more broadly by non-technical people. Try mentioning the MIT or the GPL license instead, you are in for a fun ride. I don't see the point in actively trying to destroy this usage. Now we could discuss on pushing "free software" vs "open source" but this is another topic. I'm saying all this as a free software proponent. I don't quite like it that the OSI came and cast a shadow on the free software movement and pushed for the "open source" phrase. Open source is good but the values pushed by the free software movement is really what we ought to spread IMO (and FWIW, even Bruce Perens, one of the founders of the open source movement and the writer of the OSD, agrees with me [1]). But again, it is what it is, history has been playing out this way. About your second paragraph, I mostly agree with you, but precisely open source / free software is what you really need for this. Source-available is a step in the right direction, but even if the company goes defunct, you still have no rights to adapt the code to make it work on future systems unless an explicit clause tells you otherwise. You can decide to do it anyway but you expose yourself to legal risks. So if it's important to you, you should advocate for open source / free software specifically, and not merely source availability. And you need to use the right words the way people understand them for this because the subtleties matter. [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/02/msg01641.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/02/msg01641.html

palata 3y ago

> I don't really care what that organization says. The most obvious meaning of that phrase is that the source code is publicly visible. That's an interesting point of view. Do you apply that for everything? "I don't need a dictionary: when I don't know a word, I just choose to understand it the way I find obvious, and hope that the rest of the world will follow me".