3 ms·

Thank you for sharing the article. It makes many points that I found spot on. Choosing a different phrase than open source defeats the purpose of improving "op

Thank you for sharing the article. It makes many points that I found spot on. Choosing a different phrase than open source defeats the purpose of improving "open source". Imaging you want to bring down and rebuild a temple because it's constructed with asbestos (which now we know is carcinogenic) but some locals chain themselves to it and ask you to go build yourself another temple somewhere else. The goal is to reconstruct the temple to make it better for everyone. My intention is not to be insensitive to some people's attachment to what they have chosen to worship (i.e. the software guidelines of 1997), but the absence of a practical solution would continue to hurt the [small] developers and users. This is where it matters to be clear on whose solution we are trying to solve: hackers/hobbyists, software engineers, software companies, consumers, or everyone! Something that I would consider a possible weakness of your article is that it suggests too many groups as the beneficiaries of the open source software. Open source as defined by OSI is not supposed to solve everyone's problem. It's mainly concerned with the needs of hackers. That's why I prefer the term "hackable software" over "open source" or "free software". The rights/freedoms that open source offers are mainly hacking rights. That was the whole idea from the beginning. https://forum.resoldev.com/t/what-is-hackable-software/22 https://forum.resoldev.com/t/what-is-hackable-software/22 A mere consumer of software, or a software company can also benefit from open source, but open source demonstrably does not take all their needs into account. https://forum.resoldev.com/t/is-open-source-relevant-to-your-needs/18 https://forum.resoldev.com/t/is-open-source-relevant-to-your... We can, however, update the definition to take the needs of more groups into account, and acknowledge their relevance to the open source community. Then it would make more sense for your customers to care about open source. As for the companies that rely on an open source business model, I think there's really not any single event that is going to eliminate their need to pivot. Perhaps the competition would shift users' demand more toward privacy and security and away from hacking rights. That would put the followers of 1997 guidelines at a disadvantage. Many customers would prefer to use software that is not just "AS IS", but rather actively audited for them for free when their alternative choice is to choose a legacy open source and cross their fingers that "someone else" have audited the files. As your second paragraph under "Open source is not for everyone" suggests, it's probably going to be a pendulum swing as it has always been. At first there was too many restrictions, now there is not enough restrictions. Maybe zigzag is the way to go forward. I doubt any solution would be good forever, not even a better open source definition.

commoner 3y ago
> Imaging you want to bring down and rebuild a temple because it's constructed with asbestos (which now we know is carcinogenic) That's a terrible analogy, because open source software is not "carcinogenic". If you don't want to use open source software, then simply don't use it. If you don't want to develop open source software, then use a license that is not open source. Your argument sounds just like Steve Ballmer calling Linux a "cancer" in 2001 because he considered it a threat to his commercial ambitions: https://www.theregister.com/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_cancer/ https://www.theregister.com/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_ca... > Open source as defined by OSI is not supposed to solve everyone's problem. It's mainly concerned with the needs of hackers. That is incorrect, because the Open Source Definition focuses on user freedom, which is not limited to "the needs of hackers". Open source software licenses guarantee that all users can use, examine, modify, and redistribute the software as they please. For example, Meta disallowing Llama 2 from being used for certain purposes is an infringement on user freedom (relevant to all users, not just "hackers") that disqualifies Llama 2 from being open source. > A mere consumer of software, or a software company can also benefit from open source, but open source demonstrably does not take all their needs into account. You'll need to be more specific about these supposed "needs". You can argue that software developers may be more commercially successful by making their software proprietary or source-available instead of open source. However, users will always be better served by using the same software under a free and open source software license that preserves user freedoms instead of a proprietary or source-available software license that does not.
- JasonGoldman 3y ago
  > open source software is not "carcinogenic" I'm referring to the outdated open source definition that is causing great projects leave the open source community. The rules, not the apps. > Open source software licenses guarantee that all users can use, examine, modify, and redistribute the software as they please. That sounds nice. But most users can't benefit from most of those rights, because they can't afford nor do they want to examine, modify, and redistribute the apps they install on their devices. They do, however, want privacy that the OSI's definition doesn't guarantee. > users will always be better served by using the same software under a free and open source software license that preserves user freedoms That's a common misconception that stems from advertising the hackable software as "free" and "open". This is a sanitized version of your argument that doesn't exploit users' cognitive biases: "users will always be better served by using the same software under a hackable software license that gives them hacking rights" It's intuitive to think why wouldn't anyone prefer something that is "open" and gives me a lot of "freedom" over something that is "closed" and "restricts" them? I have offered an answer in the link below. If you explain to users that by "preserving their freedom" you mean you are giving them permission to spend their time debugging the apps and expecting them to share their work with others without even getting paid they would not want to that. We know that because most consumers of open source software do not make significant [if any] code contributions to the software they use. The only freedom they ever utilize, is the freedom to use the app. But "freedom" out of context is very appealing. https://forum.resoldev.com/t/what-lies-beyond-free-and-open/23 https://forum.resoldev.com/t/what-lies-beyond-free-and-open/...

commoner 3y ago

> Imaging you want to bring down and rebuild a temple because it's constructed with asbestos (which now we know is carcinogenic) That's a terrible analogy, because open source software is not "carcinogenic". If you don't want to use open source software, then simply don't use it. If you don't want to develop open source software, then use a license that is not open source. Your argument sounds just like Steve Ballmer calling Linux a "cancer" in 2001 because he considered it a threat to his commercial ambitions: https://www.theregister.com/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_cancer/ https://www.theregister.com/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_ca... > Open source as defined by OSI is not supposed to solve everyone's problem. It's mainly concerned with the needs of hackers. That is incorrect, because the Open Source Definition focuses on user freedom, which is not limited to "the needs of hackers". Open source software licenses guarantee that all users can use, examine, modify, and redistribute the software as they please. For example, Meta disallowing Llama 2 from being used for certain purposes is an infringement on user freedom (relevant to all users, not just "hackers") that disqualifies Llama 2 from being open source. > A mere consumer of software, or a software company can also benefit from open source, but open source demonstrably does not take all their needs into account. You'll need to be more specific about these supposed "needs". You can argue that software developers may be more commercially successful by making their software proprietary or source-available instead of open source. However, users will always be better served by using the same software under a free and open source software license that preserves user freedoms instead of a proprietary or source-available software license that does not.

JasonGoldman 3y ago
> open source software is not "carcinogenic" I'm referring to the outdated open source definition that is causing great projects leave the open source community. The rules, not the apps. > Open source software licenses guarantee that all users can use, examine, modify, and redistribute the software as they please. That sounds nice. But most users can't benefit from most of those rights, because they can't afford nor do they want to examine, modify, and redistribute the apps they install on their devices. They do, however, want privacy that the OSI's definition doesn't guarantee. > users will always be better served by using the same software under a free and open source software license that preserves user freedoms That's a common misconception that stems from advertising the hackable software as "free" and "open". This is a sanitized version of your argument that doesn't exploit users' cognitive biases: "users will always be better served by using the same software under a hackable software license that gives them hacking rights" It's intuitive to think why wouldn't anyone prefer something that is "open" and gives me a lot of "freedom" over something that is "closed" and "restricts" them? I have offered an answer in the link below. If you explain to users that by "preserving their freedom" you mean you are giving them permission to spend their time debugging the apps and expecting them to share their work with others without even getting paid they would not want to that. We know that because most consumers of open source software do not make significant [if any] code contributions to the software they use. The only freedom they ever utilize, is the freedom to use the app. But "freedom" out of context is very appealing. https://forum.resoldev.com/t/what-lies-beyond-free-and-open/23 https://forum.resoldev.com/t/what-lies-beyond-free-and-open/...