6 ms·

The source is open. “Open Source” does not mean the FLOSS-flavour of Open in conventional speech. If you want to fight that battle, sure, it’s not unreasonable,

by burke 3y ago

The source is open. “Open Source” does not mean the FLOSS-flavour of Open in conventional speech. If you want to fight that battle, sure, it’s not unreasonable, but realize that you’re pushing a sub-consensus view.

mepian 3y ago
"Source-available" is already the established term for this kind of software, not sure what you are talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software
- rendaw 3y ago
  "Free and open source (FOSS)" is another established term, for the opposite, so I'm not sure this proves anything.
  - jraph 3y ago
    It's not the opposite. Source-available is a requirement of FLOSS (or FOSS). FOSS is "source-available" + other guarantees.
- Narishma 3y ago
  Does that term really apply to this? You can modify and distribute the source. The only thing you can't do is sell it.
  - Pet_Ant 3y ago
    Yes, because the OSI doesn’t recognize it as such.
    - gfosco 3y ago
      I don't recognize the OSI as any authority to define words.
      - mannerheim 3y ago
        > Open-source software (OSS) is computer software that is released under a license in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software and its source code to anyone and for any purpose.[1][2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software
      - hgs3 3y ago
        The OSI once applied to the USPTO for a trademark on "open source" and was denied [1]. [1] https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...
      - jraph 3y ago
        This is fine, but you don't get to decide what people mean when they say "open source", and usually they mean this definition.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
xorcist 3y ago
Consensus is very clear here and it's the opposite of what you suggest. Check out wikipedia, or count google hits, or just talk to any computer geek who was alive in the 90s.
- hotpotamus 3y ago
  This sounds like it's getting into a pedantry I wasn't aware of. If the source is available for me to look at and potentially mess around with, I'd consider it open source, but I assume it's the non-commercial aspect that makes it not "Open Source"? That said, I'm very impressed with the reverse engineering work on this having played it before.
  - dontlaugh 3y ago
    There’s a clear widely accepted definition https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/
    - burke 3y ago
      This is a claim by an organization on ownership of a phrase used by humans in common speech. That doesn’t mean it’s what people mean when they say it.
      - bayindirh 3y ago
        There are many licenses and license models, and there's an already a consensus on what consists of open source software. There are also licenses which shows you the code, but you can't legally reuse parts of it. Even some of the licenses prohibit you from compiling and creating your own version and use it, yet alone study, modify and/or distribute. There are many sinister versions of so-called open source software per your definition. The most famous ones in my book is Microsoft's VSCode and Google's Chrome. Both have "open source" counterparts VSCodium & Chromium, yet they lack the sauce to perform like the closed source one, or is confined to its small space and prevented from operating like the closed source versions. Can we call these crippled versions open source software? Yes, they compile & run, but to what extent? They are intentionally a shadow if their real selves, and this creates a situation where you can see the code but can't use it. They run afoul the idea behind open source by adopting a permissive license, and abusing the license to create the closed source, superior version which is force-fed to users. Even GPL doesn't prohibit selling the software itself or other commercial/for profit uses. It bolsters four freedoms, and make sure that it's continued from generation to generation, maintainer to maintainer. So, just because you don't agree on the ideas, ideals and consensus amongst the developers and open source / free software people, it doesn't give you the license to treat every codebase the way you see fit regardless of the license it contains.
ainiriand 3y ago
Then it would be fair to call Unreal Engine open source, which is not.
mannerheim 3y ago
> Open-source software (OSS) is computer software that is released under a license in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software and its source code to anyone and for any purpose.[1][2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software
Delk 3y ago
Where does this consensus of considering open source to mean the same as source available exist? I certainly haven't seen any such consensus anywhere. Or is it just a consensus you assume to be there based on the assumption that people in general would just take the words at face value?
- Delk 3y ago
  Can't edit anymore, so replying to self instead. But now that I look at it again, it seems you aren't saying the face value meaning of the words "open source" would be the consensus either, just that the OSI-style meaning isn't common enough to be considered consensus either. Which I suppose is fair enough, and it seems like I may have originally replied to something you didn't say. I'd still disagree both about the lack of a consensus, based on my general experience, and about the meaning.
yazzku 3y ago
I think you're in the minority here. Open source is generally understood to be the OSI definition of the term, not just "source available". The latter is typically what is understood by people who are not familiar with OSS or free software.
mordae 3y ago
Is it stands, it would be rejected for inclusion in Debian and other distributions (unlike open source games) and I wouldn't be able to bring it to my software club and study it with kids, because that would be using it in a commercial setting. Don't get my hopes up by calling it open when you post it on HN. It's not that much to ask.
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  > I wouldn't be able to bring it to my software club and study it with kids, because that would be using it in a commercial setting. Would you mind elaborating on this? How is a software club a commercial setting?
  - pgeorgi 3y ago
    "Commercial activity" can be as benign as "There are membership fees", "There's a soda machine in the corner that takes coins", "I'm doing it to brush up my CV" (increasing future income potential), or "There are ads on the website". As such, any of these might trigger the "only for ... non-commercial ... use" clause. So folks generally just don't sweat it.
    - boredhedgehog 3y ago
      The Sustainable Use License doesn't seem to contain a blanket ban on commercial use. Here's what it says on limitations: "You may use or modify the software only for your own internal business purposes or for non-commercial or personal use. You may distribute the software or provide it to others only if you do so free of charge for non-commercial purposes. You may not alter, remove, or obscure any licensing, copyright, or other notices of the licensor in the software. Any use of the licensor’s trademarks is subject to applicable law." Studying the software in a commercial setting seems to be permitted.
      - anthk 3y ago
        It's still non-free, period. True FOSS software doesn't impose restrictions on commercial sales.
jraph 3y ago
No it's not, and yes it does. This trend on HN that has consisted in wanting to kill the meaning of "open source" as most people understand it is very weird and surprising. I don't understand what is at stake. I have noticed this since one month or so. The vast majority of projects that call themselves open source mean the open source definition as defined by the open source initiative, or something equivalent. You might not like or recognize the OSI and that's fine, but you can't decide what people mean when they say open source. You are the one starting the battle and I don't understand your motives. I just searched for "open source" in a search engine, I'm getting [1,2,3] and lists of "the best open source software". And they are all using the OSD. You are at odds with Wikipedia, IBM, RedHat and with Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple [4,5,6,7,8], and with everyone else, really. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source [2] https://www.redhat.com/en/topics/open-source/what-is-open-source https://www.redhat.com/en/topics/open-source/what-is-open-so... [3] https://www.ibm.com/en-en/topics/open-source https://www.ibm.com/en-en/topics/open-source [4] https://opensource.microsoft.com/ https://opensource.microsoft.com/ [5] https://opensource.google/ https://opensource.google/ [6] https://aws.amazon.com/fr/opensource/ https://aws.amazon.com/fr/opensource/ [7] https://opensource.fb.com/ https://opensource.fb.com/ [8] https://opensource.apple.com/ https://opensource.apple.com/

by burke 3y ago

mepian 3y ago

"Source-available" is already the established term for this kind of software, not sure what you are talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software

rendaw 3y ago
"Free and open source (FOSS)" is another established term, for the opposite, so I'm not sure this proves anything.
- jraph 3y ago
  It's not the opposite. Source-available is a requirement of FLOSS (or FOSS). FOSS is "source-available" + other guarantees.
Narishma 3y ago
Does that term really apply to this? You can modify and distribute the source. The only thing you can't do is sell it.
- Pet_Ant 3y ago
  Yes, because the OSI doesn’t recognize it as such.
  - gfosco 3y ago
    I don't recognize the OSI as any authority to define words.
    - mannerheim 3y ago
      > Open-source software (OSS) is computer software that is released under a license in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software and its source code to anyone and for any purpose.[1][2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software
    - hgs3 3y ago
      The OSI once applied to the USPTO for a trademark on "open source" and was denied [1]. [1] https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...
    - jraph 3y ago
      This is fine, but you don't get to decide what people mean when they say "open source", and usually they mean this definition.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

xorcist 3y ago

Consensus is very clear here and it's the opposite of what you suggest. Check out wikipedia, or count google hits, or just talk to any computer geek who was alive in the 90s.

hotpotamus 3y ago
This sounds like it's getting into a pedantry I wasn't aware of. If the source is available for me to look at and potentially mess around with, I'd consider it open source, but I assume it's the non-commercial aspect that makes it not "Open Source"? That said, I'm very impressed with the reverse engineering work on this having played it before.
- dontlaugh 3y ago
  There’s a clear widely accepted definition https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/
  - burke 3y ago
    This is a claim by an organization on ownership of a phrase used by humans in common speech. That doesn’t mean it’s what people mean when they say it.
    - bayindirh 3y ago
      There are many licenses and license models, and there's an already a consensus on what consists of open source software. There are also licenses which shows you the code, but you can't legally reuse parts of it. Even some of the licenses prohibit you from compiling and creating your own version and use it, yet alone study, modify and/or distribute. There are many sinister versions of so-called open source software per your definition. The most famous ones in my book is Microsoft's VSCode and Google's Chrome. Both have "open source" counterparts VSCodium & Chromium, yet they lack the sauce to perform like the closed source one, or is confined to its small space and prevented from operating like the closed source versions. Can we call these crippled versions open source software? Yes, they compile & run, but to what extent? They are intentionally a shadow if their real selves, and this creates a situation where you can see the code but can't use it. They run afoul the idea behind open source by adopting a permissive license, and abusing the license to create the closed source, superior version which is force-fed to users. Even GPL doesn't prohibit selling the software itself or other commercial/for profit uses. It bolsters four freedoms, and make sure that it's continued from generation to generation, maintainer to maintainer. So, just because you don't agree on the ideas, ideals and consensus amongst the developers and open source / free software people, it doesn't give you the license to treat every codebase the way you see fit regardless of the license it contains.

ainiriand 3y ago

Then it would be fair to call Unreal Engine open source, which is not.

mannerheim 3y ago

> Open-source software (OSS) is computer software that is released under a license in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software and its source code to anyone and for any purpose.[1][2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software

Delk 3y ago

Where does this consensus of considering open source to mean the same as source available exist? I certainly haven't seen any such consensus anywhere. Or is it just a consensus you assume to be there based on the assumption that people in general would just take the words at face value?

Delk 3y ago
Can't edit anymore, so replying to self instead. But now that I look at it again, it seems you aren't saying the face value meaning of the words "open source" would be the consensus either, just that the OSI-style meaning isn't common enough to be considered consensus either. Which I suppose is fair enough, and it seems like I may have originally replied to something you didn't say. I'd still disagree both about the lack of a consensus, based on my general experience, and about the meaning.

yazzku 3y ago

I think you're in the minority here. Open source is generally understood to be the OSI definition of the term, not just "source available". The latter is typically what is understood by people who are not familiar with OSS or free software.

mordae 3y ago

Is it stands, it would be rejected for inclusion in Debian and other distributions (unlike open source games) and I wouldn't be able to bring it to my software club and study it with kids, because that would be using it in a commercial setting. Don't get my hopes up by calling it open when you post it on HN. It's not that much to ask.

littlestymaar 3y ago
> I wouldn't be able to bring it to my software club and study it with kids, because that would be using it in a commercial setting. Would you mind elaborating on this? How is a software club a commercial setting?
- pgeorgi 3y ago
  "Commercial activity" can be as benign as "There are membership fees", "There's a soda machine in the corner that takes coins", "I'm doing it to brush up my CV" (increasing future income potential), or "There are ads on the website". As such, any of these might trigger the "only for ... non-commercial ... use" clause. So folks generally just don't sweat it.
  - boredhedgehog 3y ago
    The Sustainable Use License doesn't seem to contain a blanket ban on commercial use. Here's what it says on limitations: "You may use or modify the software only for your own internal business purposes or for non-commercial or personal use. You may distribute the software or provide it to others only if you do so free of charge for non-commercial purposes. You may not alter, remove, or obscure any licensing, copyright, or other notices of the licensor in the software. Any use of the licensor’s trademarks is subject to applicable law." Studying the software in a commercial setting seems to be permitted.
    - anthk 3y ago
      It's still non-free, period. True FOSS software doesn't impose restrictions on commercial sales.

jraph 3y ago

No it's not, and yes it does. This trend on HN that has consisted in wanting to kill the meaning of "open source" as most people understand it is very weird and surprising. I don't understand what is at stake. I have noticed this since one month or so. The vast majority of projects that call themselves open source mean the open source definition as defined by the open source initiative, or something equivalent. You might not like or recognize the OSI and that's fine, but you can't decide what people mean when they say open source. You are the one starting the battle and I don't understand your motives. I just searched for "open source" in a search engine, I'm getting [1,2,3] and lists of "the best open source software". And they are all using the OSD. You are at odds with Wikipedia, IBM, RedHat and with Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple [4,5,6,7,8], and with everyone else, really. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source [2] https://www.redhat.com/en/topics/open-source/what-is-open-source https://www.redhat.com/en/topics/open-source/what-is-open-so... [3] https://www.ibm.com/en-en/topics/open-source https://www.ibm.com/en-en/topics/open-source [4] https://opensource.microsoft.com/ https://opensource.microsoft.com/ [5] https://opensource.google/ https://opensource.google/ [6] https://aws.amazon.com/fr/opensource/ https://aws.amazon.com/fr/opensource/ [7] https://opensource.fb.com/ https://opensource.fb.com/ [8] https://opensource.apple.com/ https://opensource.apple.com/