3 ms·

Didn't Twitter open source a large portion of the code base? Seems like that isn't going to help their case.

nicolas_17 3y ago
No, I would definitely not call that a "large portion".
smolder 3y ago
It also doesn't help that the basic functionality of Twitter can be duplicated in a weekend by a junior dev, and has been many times. What novel idea can be stolen from Twitter? Everyone already lifted the hashtag idea ~15 years ago.
mrguyorama 3y ago
Nah, they released a bunch of the piping that goes around an ML model, but that's very boilerplate stuff to anyone with python data science experience. It's like if you made calculators and "open sourced" one by releasing the code that reads keypresses and does CPU scheduling. Like yeah, those are things a calculator does but not only is it code everyone else in the business could expect to write themselves in a couple sprints but it's also exactly NOT the magic sauce.
ksaj 3y ago
I don't know the specifics, but the license included with that code will specify what can and can't be done with it. ~~Not all open source is free to use in your own code base. Sometimes it is open sourced for review purposes.~~ Edited: the last line is incorrect.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > Sometimes it is open sourced for review purposes. Huh? I'm not aware that it's possible to open source something without, you know, making it OSS. Am I mistaken, or are we talking about two different meanings for "open source"?
  - ksaj 3y ago
    Sorry, you are right. The issue I was thinking about is that there are different OSS licenses, and they have different requirements for use. Attribution and open sourcing any changes you make to the original code base are an examples. The agreements for opening code up for review purposes only is indeed not OSS, despite the word 'open' often being used there. I started off sound, then diverged. The part of Twitter that was open sourced will have a license spelling out what you need to do (if anything) in order to use the code. The review part is a different thing.
  - brasic 3y ago
    I assume OP was referring to “source available” schemes where the source is published or sometimes selectively disclosed but not licensed for anything other than review, ie you lack the right to run or copy it. Needless to say, it’s not accurate to call that “open source”.

No, I would definitely not call that a "large portion".

It also doesn't help that the basic functionality of Twitter can be duplicated in a weekend by a junior dev, and has been many times. What novel idea can be stolen from Twitter? Everyone already lifted the hashtag idea ~15 years ago.

mrguyorama 3y ago

Nah, they released a bunch of the piping that goes around an ML model, but that's very boilerplate stuff to anyone with python data science experience. It's like if you made calculators and "open sourced" one by releasing the code that reads keypresses and does CPU scheduling. Like yeah, those are things a calculator does but not only is it code everyone else in the business could expect to write themselves in a couple sprints but it's also exactly NOT the magic sauce.

ksaj 3y ago

I don't know the specifics, but the license included with that code will specify what can and can't be done with it. ~~Not all open source is free to use in your own code base. Sometimes it is open sourced for review purposes.~~ Edited: the last line is incorrect.

JohnFen 3y ago
> Sometimes it is open sourced for review purposes. Huh? I'm not aware that it's possible to open source something without, you know, making it OSS. Am I mistaken, or are we talking about two different meanings for "open source"?
- ksaj 3y ago
  Sorry, you are right. The issue I was thinking about is that there are different OSS licenses, and they have different requirements for use. Attribution and open sourcing any changes you make to the original code base are an examples. The agreements for opening code up for review purposes only is indeed not OSS, despite the word 'open' often being used there. I started off sound, then diverged. The part of Twitter that was open sourced will have a license spelling out what you need to do (if anything) in order to use the code. The review part is a different thing.
- brasic 3y ago
  I assume OP was referring to “source available” schemes where the source is published or sometimes selectively disclosed but not licensed for anything other than review, ie you lack the right to run or copy it. Needless to say, it’s not accurate to call that “open source”.