5 ms·

Poll: What does the term “open source” mean?

6 points by ezekg 3y ago

Does "open source" strictly mean "Open Source", or has the word changed meaning within the last 5-10 years? No better way to know than to poll HN!

jtode 3y ago
The term "open source" was invented by capital in an attempt to use the products of Free Software's ideology while erasing the parts that are not amenable to capitalist exploitation. It means whatever capital needs it to mean.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
PaulHoule 3y ago
I think anybody reasonable is going to have to accept the GPL, MIT and Apache licenses as all "open source" as different as those things are.
- ezekg 3y ago
  But what about BSL? Or SSPL? Or ELv2? Where is the real line drawn? At OSI's stamp of approval, or is it more nuanced?
  - mattl 3y ago
    Can you post links to those licenses? Typically the licenses which don't qualify are non-commercial licenses or have rules about who can and can't use the software under those licenses, which makes them non-free/non-open source.
    - ezekg 3y ago
      Sure. What you said is exactly what the poll is meant to answer. - https://spdx.org/licenses/BUSL-1.1.html https://spdx.org/licenses/BUSL-1.1.html - https://spdx.org/licenses/SSPL-1.0.html https://spdx.org/licenses/SSPL-1.0.html - https://spdx.org/licenses/Elastic-2.0 https://spdx.org/licenses/Elastic-2.0 These are not OSI-approved, but some may argue could be considered 'effectively open source' for most use cases.
leakycap 3y ago
When Apple got in to Open Source in the 2000s, they defined it as: >"The basic principle is to involve as many people as possible in writing and debugging code, by publishing the source code and encouraging the formation of a large community of developers who will submit modifications and enhancements." [0] Apple's use of open source was eye-opening to me. I liked Darwin, and watching it sadly go extinct was a weird bummer. >As of January 2023, Apple no longer mentions Darwin by name on its Open Source website and only publishes an incomplete collection of open-source projects relating to macOS and iOS. [1] I think the simplest answer is anything based on the Debian Free Software Guidelines: √ Free redistribution √ Inclusion of source code. √ Allowing for modifications and derived works. √ Integrity of the author's source code (as a compromise). √ No discrimination against persons or groups. √ No discrimination against fields of endeavor, like commercial use. √ The license needs to apply to all to whom the program is redistributed. √ License must not be specific to a product. √ License must not restrict other software. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20000901055855/http://www.opensource.apple.com/ps-faq.html https://web.archive.org/web/20000901055855/http://www.openso... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guideline...
- mattl 3y ago
  Apple has a bunch of stuff including Darwin up on GitHub. https://github.com/apple/darwin-xnu https://github.com/apple/darwin-xnu -- I have no idea how current any of that is however.
thesuperbigfrog 3y ago
Open Source Definition: https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/ Free Software definition: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html It is more than just having access to the source code. It is what you can do with the source code. Open Source Initiative license list: https://opensource.org/licenses/ https://opensource.org/licenses/
- ezekg 3y ago
  I'm aware that OSI believes it has a monopoly on the term. I was more polling the general tech population on their own internal definition of open source. I may have worded the poll poorly -- I tried to avoid imparting any preconceived notions. But I probably should have worded the title: what does the term "open source" mean to you? From my small user surveys, "open source" means a lot of things.
  - thesuperbigfrog 3y ago
    >> From my small user surveys, "open source" means a lot of things. Asking people to vote on something does not change the meaning. The term "open source" referring to the distribution of source code and the rights associated with it have historical origins that are well-documented: https://opensource.org/history/ https://opensource.org/history/ https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/The-Brains-Behind-Freeware-To-Meet-3009916.php https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/The-Brains-Behind-Fr... https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/FREEWARE-PIONEERS-Innovators-Advocate-Free-3009146.php https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/FREEWARE-PIONEERS-In... https://linuxgazette.net/issue28/rossum.html https://linuxgazette.net/issue28/rossum.html If you want to use some other license and call it "open source", then don't be surprised when people call it out for whatever the differences are.

6 points by ezekg 3y ago

Does "open source" strictly mean "Open Source", or has the word changed meaning within the last 5-10 years? No better way to know than to poll HN!

jtode 3y ago

The term "open source" was invented by capital in an attempt to use the products of Free Software's ideology while erasing the parts that are not amenable to capitalist exploitation. It means whatever capital needs it to mean.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

PaulHoule 3y ago

I think anybody reasonable is going to have to accept the GPL, MIT and Apache licenses as all "open source" as different as those things are.

ezekg 3y ago
But what about BSL? Or SSPL? Or ELv2? Where is the real line drawn? At OSI's stamp of approval, or is it more nuanced?
- mattl 3y ago
  Can you post links to those licenses? Typically the licenses which don't qualify are non-commercial licenses or have rules about who can and can't use the software under those licenses, which makes them non-free/non-open source.
  - ezekg 3y ago
    Sure. What you said is exactly what the poll is meant to answer. - https://spdx.org/licenses/BUSL-1.1.html https://spdx.org/licenses/BUSL-1.1.html - https://spdx.org/licenses/SSPL-1.0.html https://spdx.org/licenses/SSPL-1.0.html - https://spdx.org/licenses/Elastic-2.0 https://spdx.org/licenses/Elastic-2.0 These are not OSI-approved, but some may argue could be considered 'effectively open source' for most use cases.

leakycap 3y ago

When Apple got in to Open Source in the 2000s, they defined it as: >"The basic principle is to involve as many people as possible in writing and debugging code, by publishing the source code and encouraging the formation of a large community of developers who will submit modifications and enhancements." [0] Apple's use of open source was eye-opening to me. I liked Darwin, and watching it sadly go extinct was a weird bummer. >As of January 2023, Apple no longer mentions Darwin by name on its Open Source website and only publishes an incomplete collection of open-source projects relating to macOS and iOS. [1] I think the simplest answer is anything based on the Debian Free Software Guidelines: √ Free redistribution √ Inclusion of source code. √ Allowing for modifications and derived works. √ Integrity of the author's source code (as a compromise). √ No discrimination against persons or groups. √ No discrimination against fields of endeavor, like commercial use. √ The license needs to apply to all to whom the program is redistributed. √ License must not be specific to a product. √ License must not restrict other software. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20000901055855/http://www.opensource.apple.com/ps-faq.html https://web.archive.org/web/20000901055855/http://www.openso... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guideline...

mattl 3y ago
Apple has a bunch of stuff including Darwin up on GitHub. https://github.com/apple/darwin-xnu https://github.com/apple/darwin-xnu -- I have no idea how current any of that is however.

thesuperbigfrog 3y ago

Open Source Definition: https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/ Free Software definition: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html It is more than just having access to the source code. It is what you can do with the source code. Open Source Initiative license list: https://opensource.org/licenses/ https://opensource.org/licenses/

ezekg 3y ago
I'm aware that OSI believes it has a monopoly on the term. I was more polling the general tech population on their own internal definition of open source. I may have worded the poll poorly -- I tried to avoid imparting any preconceived notions. But I probably should have worded the title: what does the term "open source" mean to you? From my small user surveys, "open source" means a lot of things.
- thesuperbigfrog 3y ago
  >> From my small user surveys, "open source" means a lot of things. Asking people to vote on something does not change the meaning. The term "open source" referring to the distribution of source code and the rights associated with it have historical origins that are well-documented: https://opensource.org/history/ https://opensource.org/history/ https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/The-Brains-Behind-Freeware-To-Meet-3009916.php https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/The-Brains-Behind-Fr... https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/FREEWARE-PIONEERS-Innovators-Advocate-Free-3009146.php https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/FREEWARE-PIONEERS-In... https://linuxgazette.net/issue28/rossum.html https://linuxgazette.net/issue28/rossum.html If you want to use some other license and call it "open source", then don't be surprised when people call it out for whatever the differences are.