3 ms·

There's "open source" in the original sense, where the source was available. Then there's "FOSS" where the source is not only available, but it's under a copyle

by taneq 3y ago

There's "open source" in the original sense, where the source was available. Then there's "FOSS" where the source is not only available, but it's under a copyleft license designed to protect the IP from greedy individual humans. And then there's "open" in the Shenzhen sense where you can find the source and other data online and nobody's going to stop you building something based on those. This is an interesting timeline.

hiatus 3y ago
> And then there's "open" in the Shenzhen sense where you can find the source and other data online and nobody's going to stop you building something based on those. I believe there is a name for that: gongkai. https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?page_id=3107 https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?page_id=3107
- taneq 3y ago
  Ooh, thanks! I've watched a few of bunnie's things in the past but that's a term I'll remember.
pzo 3y ago
On top of that there are also different OSS such as Apache and MIT that the latter one can still restrict the user from using because project owner might patented some algorithm and MIT license doesn't have patent grant. LGPL3.0 also pretty much is restricted in a way that not sure if can be used to distribute software in App Store for iOS legally.
coconut08 3y ago
The original sense of open source is defined by the people who fractured off from the Free Software movement in the mid 90's and created it. It's just "Free Software" that has a focus on practicality and utility rather than "Free Software"'s focus on idealism and doing the right thing. It has NOTHING to do with "source available" which is a movement that has recently been co-opting the open source name. "FOSS" has absolutely no requirement of it being copyleft. The MIT license is just as FOSS as the GPL. Many of the free software advocates do have an affinity for copyleft, but they are not mutually exclusive. There are plenty of FOSS advocates who also use and advocate for permissive licenses as well.
jordigh 3y ago
> There's "open source" in the original sense That original sense never existed. Virtually nobody said "open source" before OSI's 1998 campaign for "Open Source", as bankrolled by Tim O'Reilly. https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-meme-hustler https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-meme-hustler I know it's been a long time, and we've forgotten, but there is virtually no record of anyone saying "open source" before 1998, except in rare and obscure contexts and often unrelated to the modern meaning.
- teddyh 3y ago
  There’s this one from September 10th, 1996, which I find intriguing: https://web.archive.org/web/20180402143912/http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html https://web.archive.org/web/20180402143912/http://www.xent.c...

by taneq 3y ago

hiatus 3y ago

> And then there's "open" in the Shenzhen sense where you can find the source and other data online and nobody's going to stop you building something based on those. I believe there is a name for that: gongkai. https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?page_id=3107 https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?page_id=3107

taneq 3y ago
Ooh, thanks! I've watched a few of bunnie's things in the past but that's a term I'll remember.

pzo 3y ago

On top of that there are also different OSS such as Apache and MIT that the latter one can still restrict the user from using because project owner might patented some algorithm and MIT license doesn't have patent grant. LGPL3.0 also pretty much is restricted in a way that not sure if can be used to distribute software in App Store for iOS legally.

coconut08 3y ago

The original sense of open source is defined by the people who fractured off from the Free Software movement in the mid 90's and created it. It's just "Free Software" that has a focus on practicality and utility rather than "Free Software"'s focus on idealism and doing the right thing. It has NOTHING to do with "source available" which is a movement that has recently been co-opting the open source name. "FOSS" has absolutely no requirement of it being copyleft. The MIT license is just as FOSS as the GPL. Many of the free software advocates do have an affinity for copyleft, but they are not mutually exclusive. There are plenty of FOSS advocates who also use and advocate for permissive licenses as well.

jordigh 3y ago

> There's "open source" in the original sense That original sense never existed. Virtually nobody said "open source" before OSI's 1998 campaign for "Open Source", as bankrolled by Tim O'Reilly. https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-meme-hustler https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-meme-hustler I know it's been a long time, and we've forgotten, but there is virtually no record of anyone saying "open source" before 1998, except in rare and obscure contexts and often unrelated to the modern meaning.

teddyh 3y ago
There’s this one from September 10th, 1996, which I find intriguing: https://web.archive.org/web/20180402143912/http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html https://web.archive.org/web/20180402143912/http://www.xent.c...