8 ms·

Open-Source Washing

63 points by lucasfcosta 3y ago

ekiim 3y ago
Doesn't he mean FOSS, not just open source, free and open are two different things.
- rizky05 3y ago
  [dead]
- QuiDortDine 3y ago
  Yes, I don't know how one can be able to cite sources yet be so ill-informed. This article probably doesn't mean anything to anyone. Open source means you get the source, that's it. OSI is a good reference, but it's not the boss of definitions.
  - lucasfcosta 3y ago
    I appreciate the input, even though I don't necessarily agree. Indeed, "open source" taken at face value could be interpreted as "source available", but given the historical context, that's not what the term intends to represent. It's because of this dissonance that I think it's important to make differences clear. Perhaps "free software" has always been a better name, but I think the community needs to come to an agreement on this.
    - Denote6737 3y ago
      Free software comes with its own issues and connotations. Most people see free and think without cost. So is shareware free software?
      - commoner 3y ago
        Shareware is not free software, since it does not provide users the right to inspect or modify the software. It is also not freeware, since some or all of its features are not available free of charge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareware
  - Flimm 3y ago
    No, open source doesn't just mean that you get the source. This is the open source definition, the only commonly used definition used in the software world: https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/ The first sentence says: > Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria: In particular, all commercial usage must be allowed, otherwise, it is not open source.
  - skoob 3y ago
    The term "opensource software" was coined by the OSI founders explicitly to have the meaning they laid out in the Open Source Definition. The term didn't exist before that.
- jongjong 3y ago
  Interestingly, FOSS means more freedom for the code and for the end user of the code but less freedom for any developer or company who might be reproducing and/or hosting the code. The copyleft requirement of GNU licenses restrict what a developer and/or company can do with the code since it forces them to make any derived code public... Which is generally undesirable for commercial projects; especially early in their lifecycles when bugs may be present and would be best kept private until the project has been more battle-tested. GPL licenses are a good way to ensnare businesses and then up-sell other software licenses that are more suited for commercial use.
  - jj999 3y ago
    Except the developer of the code is not binded by the copyleft restriction. The developer can take his own code, modify it, and not release any modification. The copyleft requirement restrict what others developers can do with the code. If they don't like it... well, who are they to use the code at all?
    - jongjong 3y ago
      Yes agreed, the original developer is not bound since they still retain the copyright. I meant to say 'reproducing' the code, not 'producing'. Only the developers of derived code are restricted.
  - phoenk 3y ago
    > Which is generally undesirable for commercial projects; especially early in their lifecycles when bugs may be present and would be best kept private until the project has been more battle-tested. Copyleft only kicks in on redistribution. If you're only testing internally, you don't need to distribute source code. It's only once you distribute that software that you also need to distribute source.
    - erhaetherth 3y ago
      What counts as 'distribution'? If the public can connect to my server, do I have to share my server code?
chunk_waffle 3y ago
Disappointed to discover that this link does NOT take me to plans for an open source washing machine...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Denote6737 3y ago
  It's what I hoped for too.
- throwaway21321 3y ago
  bro same
- midoridensha 3y ago
  I don't really want to build an open-source washing machine myself, but such a project would be really fascinating to read about. I too was very disappointed to find out (just reading the comments here, luckily I didn't waste time clicking on the article) it's just some boring drivel arguing about what is or isn't "true" open-source.
BillyTheMage 3y ago
[flagged]
kube-system 3y ago
> There's no room for arguing, and there's no in-between — any software whose license doesn't belong to the OSI's list is proprietary software. There's plenty of room for arguing. The FSF, in fact, approves a few licenses that OSI doesn't.
- bee_rider 3y ago
  There is always room for arguing. If not, we will have an argument about whether or not argument should be allowed. I think when someone says there is no room for argument, they are just signaling that they aren’t open to being convinced of anything. Which makes discussion a bit of a dead end.
  - Flimm 3y ago
    Semantic drift is a real problem. Too much semantic drift can make it difficult to communicate, because we no longer have a common vocabulary to communicate with. I don't think semantic drift is inevitable, but it is inevitable if it isn't resisted by a large enough fraction of the community. The whole discussion here is about semantics. What does "open source" mean? I think having a clear definition of "open source" (at least when it comes to software) is a good thing for the world and for the community. It helps us communicate to have the OSD definition. If "open source" changes its definition to no longer require no restrictions on usage, we have lost a good and useful term that will make it harder for the "real" open source community to communicate. By analogy, imagine if some people started arguing that ceasar salads (with chicken) are vegetarian, because salads contain mostly vegetables. Wouldn't it be reasonable for everyone to resist that semantic drift? The term "vegetarian" would lose both its history and its usefulness. Those who state historically accepted definitions in strong terms are trying to resist semantic drift. It doesn't mean "they aren't open to being convinced of anything", that's a bit uncharitable. It means they aren't open to semantic draft regarding this term.
    - dgb23 3y ago
      Semantic drift is of course a very natural thing that can’t be stopped. A very fun thing is to look up word origins of words and terms I care about. There’s often a revealing or thought provoking history. One of my favorites is the German word “enttäuschen” which means to disappoint but has a different original meaning. However what irks me is when interest groups try to force a semantic change in order to fullfil a typically financial or political agenda. Terms that have a positive connotation like “Open Source” need to maintain a degree of integrity in order to stay useful at all.
MightyBuzzard 3y ago
[dead]
bee_rider 3y ago
Having a figure showing three categories of software after a very vigorous assertion that there are only two seems like an odd way of laying things out.
- BossHogg 3y ago
  Venn diagrams, how do they work?
doctorpangloss 3y ago
The bigger scandal is that Mr. Joe BigCo Developer rewriting a bonafide open source app in BigCo language Swiftgolanghacksharp makes that new thing also open source, but for some reason, everyone gets away with declaring it proprietary.
jwagenet 3y ago
> The BSL license is not an Open Source license because it restricts users' freedom to run the program however they wish. I’m no expert, but how is this any different than AGPL restrictions/requirements to redistribute source code if you are running a modification on a server? Obviously, AGPL offers greater “benefit” with its requirement, but this seems to still be a restriction on how you can run the software.
- erinnh 3y ago
  Does it? You can run the software with AGPL. You simply need to contribute it back to the main project. That’s a marked difference.
  - commoner 3y ago
    > You can run the software with AGPL. You simply need to contribute it back to the main project. Close, but not quite! Under the AGPL, you only need to make the source code available to the people who interact with the software over a computer network. You don't necessarily need to contribute the code back to the main project. > 13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License. > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html
    - erinnh 3y ago
      You’re quite correct. I tend to forget this point, because, to me, there isn’t much difference.
  - jwagenet 3y ago
    You can run the software with BSL. You simply need to run it in non-production. A totally different restriction, yes, but a restriction that goes against OPs “no restriction to run” clause none the less.
Animats 3y ago
Important issue, mediocre article. The problem is that the big AI companies are trying to advertise something as open source that isn't. There's also the issue that "weights" may not be copyrightable at all in the US, because they are not a work of human authorship. There's a better way to do this. Epic licenses Unreal Engine in a simple way. You sign up and you can download it. That's free. Until you have a game that makes at least a million dollars, it's free to use. Then they want 5% of revenue. If you're successful enough to reach that threshold, they'll find you. The game industry has good sales visibility.
- erhaetherth 3y ago
  Isn't that similar to Llama's 700 million users clause?
  - Animats 3y ago
    Epic does not claim that Unreal Engine is open source. That's the point here.
- samsol 3y ago
  This is the major difference. There is an explicit understanding using the licence that the user shall pay 5% of the revenue post 1M in sales. However in Meta's case there is no such clarity . You are completely at the mercy of Meta once you have a functionality that depends on LLAMA and the business wont have any negotiating power. Entering in these potential situations is a strategic blunder and the best way to handle it is to pre-emptively avoid this path.
kazinator 3y ago
This article is very inconsistent and misleading. - Right off the bat, the Venn diagram is wrong (with regard to the author's thesis that there is only open source and proprietary) since it suggests that there is "source available" that is not proprietary (outside of the proprietary bubble) and not open source (outside of that bubble). Why draw a diagram that doesn't follow your rhetoric? - "any software whose license doesn't belong to the OSI's list is proprietary software" is just ridiculous. He's literally saying that if you hire some lawyers and create a new FOSS license, it's proprietary because it doesn't appear on OSI's list. - "All licenses on this list are guaranteed to adhere to a fixed set of criteria. These criteria guarantee four essential freedoms:" is just off the cliff. He's claiming that all the OSI licenses jibe with the GNU Projects or Free Software Foundation's definition of free software. A counterexample is any BSD or MIT licensed software which has users that do not have those freedoms due to receiving only a binary. Both OSI and FSF agree that those licenses are, respectively, open source and free, but the FSF will not agree that those licenses preserve those freedoms. BSD-licensed software is free because it's GPL-compatible: a GPLed program can use BSD-licensed pieces. Since OSI burst on the scene some quarter century ago, pushing the open source rhetoric and agenda, they permanently locked horns with Stallman and his Free Software crusade. The OSI has its own definition of what is open source: https://opensource.org/definition-annotated/ https://opensource.org/definition-annotated/ The obvious conclusion is that the author is barely starting to be knowledgeable in this area. And, no, software is not exhaustively partitioned into open source and proprietary. A binary executable (or ROM image or whatever) can land into the public domain. Then you have non-proprietary code that isn't open source because there is no source.
kemitchell 3y ago
Historically, not even the Open Source Initiative tried to define "open source" this way. There were licenses commentators agreed met their definition that they did not approve---open source but not OSI-approved. See also "license proliferation". There's also the whole issue of "public domain". Is CC0 code "proprietary"? And that's setting aside the more basic issues of whether an organization like OSI can impose its definition on the universe, whether the definition it's been trying to impose really works or just sounds good, and whether that's really a legal spec or a political document. The world is messy. It does not owe us the luxury of clear binaries.
jacknews 3y ago
Bah, I was expecting DIY washing-machine plans, detergent recipes, etc.
- electricant 3y ago
  Me too :D
noduerme 3y ago
I feel like we just need new terminology. Visible source, for example. As the author says, "There's absolutely no problem with proprietary software". To me, there is a problem with it under some circumstances if I can't inspect the source. A lot of times you aren't including it in your own code, you're just using it in your toolchain and you want to make sure it isn't poisoned. "Open source" as a phrase has become a stand-in for being able to check the source, but obviously as the author points out it's a misnomer, and can be used for misdirection. Why can't we just call it "visible source" when this is the case, to avoid confusion or false marketing?
- commoner 3y ago
  Wouldn't "visible source" be exactly the same thing as "source-available"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software
RandomGerm4n 3y ago
I think the term the author is really looking for would be free software or libre software. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
chrismsimpson 3y ago
The opening sentence is hyperbolic and wrong, there is at least one additional category of source code that is neither proprietary nor open source: public domain. This entire article lost me after that initial overreach.
- Sankozi 3y ago
  The first sentence also contradicts the first image. It is really hard to continue reading after spotting such glaring mistakes at the beginning of the article.

Open-Source Washing

63 points by lucasfcosta 3y ago

ekiim 3y ago

Doesn't he mean FOSS, not just open source, free and open are two different things.

rizky05 3y ago
[dead]
QuiDortDine 3y ago
Yes, I don't know how one can be able to cite sources yet be so ill-informed. This article probably doesn't mean anything to anyone. Open source means you get the source, that's it. OSI is a good reference, but it's not the boss of definitions.
- lucasfcosta 3y ago
  I appreciate the input, even though I don't necessarily agree. Indeed, "open source" taken at face value could be interpreted as "source available", but given the historical context, that's not what the term intends to represent. It's because of this dissonance that I think it's important to make differences clear. Perhaps "free software" has always been a better name, but I think the community needs to come to an agreement on this.
  - Denote6737 3y ago
    Free software comes with its own issues and connotations. Most people see free and think without cost. So is shareware free software?
    - commoner 3y ago
      Shareware is not free software, since it does not provide users the right to inspect or modify the software. It is also not freeware, since some or all of its features are not available free of charge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareware
- Flimm 3y ago
  No, open source doesn't just mean that you get the source. This is the open source definition, the only commonly used definition used in the software world: https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/ The first sentence says: > Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria: In particular, all commercial usage must be allowed, otherwise, it is not open source.
- skoob 3y ago
  The term "opensource software" was coined by the OSI founders explicitly to have the meaning they laid out in the Open Source Definition. The term didn't exist before that.
jongjong 3y ago
Interestingly, FOSS means more freedom for the code and for the end user of the code but less freedom for any developer or company who might be reproducing and/or hosting the code. The copyleft requirement of GNU licenses restrict what a developer and/or company can do with the code since it forces them to make any derived code public... Which is generally undesirable for commercial projects; especially early in their lifecycles when bugs may be present and would be best kept private until the project has been more battle-tested. GPL licenses are a good way to ensnare businesses and then up-sell other software licenses that are more suited for commercial use.
- jj999 3y ago
  Except the developer of the code is not binded by the copyleft restriction. The developer can take his own code, modify it, and not release any modification. The copyleft requirement restrict what others developers can do with the code. If they don't like it... well, who are they to use the code at all?
  - jongjong 3y ago
    Yes agreed, the original developer is not bound since they still retain the copyright. I meant to say 'reproducing' the code, not 'producing'. Only the developers of derived code are restricted.
- phoenk 3y ago
  > Which is generally undesirable for commercial projects; especially early in their lifecycles when bugs may be present and would be best kept private until the project has been more battle-tested. Copyleft only kicks in on redistribution. If you're only testing internally, you don't need to distribute source code. It's only once you distribute that software that you also need to distribute source.
  - erhaetherth 3y ago
    What counts as 'distribution'? If the public can connect to my server, do I have to share my server code?

chunk_waffle 3y ago

Disappointed to discover that this link does NOT take me to plans for an open source washing machine...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Denote6737 3y ago
It's what I hoped for too.
throwaway21321 3y ago
bro same
midoridensha 3y ago
I don't really want to build an open-source washing machine myself, but such a project would be really fascinating to read about. I too was very disappointed to find out (just reading the comments here, luckily I didn't waste time clicking on the article) it's just some boring drivel arguing about what is or isn't "true" open-source.

BillyTheMage 3y ago

[flagged]

kube-system 3y ago

> There's no room for arguing, and there's no in-between — any software whose license doesn't belong to the OSI's list is proprietary software. There's plenty of room for arguing. The FSF, in fact, approves a few licenses that OSI doesn't.

bee_rider 3y ago
There is always room for arguing. If not, we will have an argument about whether or not argument should be allowed. I think when someone says there is no room for argument, they are just signaling that they aren’t open to being convinced of anything. Which makes discussion a bit of a dead end.
- Flimm 3y ago
  Semantic drift is a real problem. Too much semantic drift can make it difficult to communicate, because we no longer have a common vocabulary to communicate with. I don't think semantic drift is inevitable, but it is inevitable if it isn't resisted by a large enough fraction of the community. The whole discussion here is about semantics. What does "open source" mean? I think having a clear definition of "open source" (at least when it comes to software) is a good thing for the world and for the community. It helps us communicate to have the OSD definition. If "open source" changes its definition to no longer require no restrictions on usage, we have lost a good and useful term that will make it harder for the "real" open source community to communicate. By analogy, imagine if some people started arguing that ceasar salads (with chicken) are vegetarian, because salads contain mostly vegetables. Wouldn't it be reasonable for everyone to resist that semantic drift? The term "vegetarian" would lose both its history and its usefulness. Those who state historically accepted definitions in strong terms are trying to resist semantic drift. It doesn't mean "they aren't open to being convinced of anything", that's a bit uncharitable. It means they aren't open to semantic draft regarding this term.
  - dgb23 3y ago
    Semantic drift is of course a very natural thing that can’t be stopped. A very fun thing is to look up word origins of words and terms I care about. There’s often a revealing or thought provoking history. One of my favorites is the German word “enttäuschen” which means to disappoint but has a different original meaning. However what irks me is when interest groups try to force a semantic change in order to fullfil a typically financial or political agenda. Terms that have a positive connotation like “Open Source” need to maintain a degree of integrity in order to stay useful at all.

MightyBuzzard 3y ago

[dead]

bee_rider 3y ago

Having a figure showing three categories of software after a very vigorous assertion that there are only two seems like an odd way of laying things out.

BossHogg 3y ago
Venn diagrams, how do they work?

doctorpangloss 3y ago

The bigger scandal is that Mr. Joe BigCo Developer rewriting a bonafide open source app in BigCo language Swiftgolanghacksharp makes that new thing also open source, but for some reason, everyone gets away with declaring it proprietary.

jwagenet 3y ago

> The BSL license is not an Open Source license because it restricts users' freedom to run the program however they wish. I’m no expert, but how is this any different than AGPL restrictions/requirements to redistribute source code if you are running a modification on a server? Obviously, AGPL offers greater “benefit” with its requirement, but this seems to still be a restriction on how you can run the software.

erinnh 3y ago
Does it? You can run the software with AGPL. You simply need to contribute it back to the main project. That’s a marked difference.
- commoner 3y ago
  > You can run the software with AGPL. You simply need to contribute it back to the main project. Close, but not quite! Under the AGPL, you only need to make the source code available to the people who interact with the software over a computer network. You don't necessarily need to contribute the code back to the main project. > 13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License. > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html
  - erinnh 3y ago
    You’re quite correct. I tend to forget this point, because, to me, there isn’t much difference.
- jwagenet 3y ago
  You can run the software with BSL. You simply need to run it in non-production. A totally different restriction, yes, but a restriction that goes against OPs “no restriction to run” clause none the less.

Animats 3y ago

Important issue, mediocre article. The problem is that the big AI companies are trying to advertise something as open source that isn't. There's also the issue that "weights" may not be copyrightable at all in the US, because they are not a work of human authorship. There's a better way to do this. Epic licenses Unreal Engine in a simple way. You sign up and you can download it. That's free. Until you have a game that makes at least a million dollars, it's free to use. Then they want 5% of revenue. If you're successful enough to reach that threshold, they'll find you. The game industry has good sales visibility.

erhaetherth 3y ago
Isn't that similar to Llama's 700 million users clause?
- Animats 3y ago
  Epic does not claim that Unreal Engine is open source. That's the point here.
samsol 3y ago
This is the major difference. There is an explicit understanding using the licence that the user shall pay 5% of the revenue post 1M in sales. However in Meta's case there is no such clarity . You are completely at the mercy of Meta once you have a functionality that depends on LLAMA and the business wont have any negotiating power. Entering in these potential situations is a strategic blunder and the best way to handle it is to pre-emptively avoid this path.

kazinator 3y ago

This article is very inconsistent and misleading. - Right off the bat, the Venn diagram is wrong (with regard to the author's thesis that there is only open source and proprietary) since it suggests that there is "source available" that is not proprietary (outside of the proprietary bubble) and not open source (outside of that bubble). Why draw a diagram that doesn't follow your rhetoric? - "any software whose license doesn't belong to the OSI's list is proprietary software" is just ridiculous. He's literally saying that if you hire some lawyers and create a new FOSS license, it's proprietary because it doesn't appear on OSI's list. - "All licenses on this list are guaranteed to adhere to a fixed set of criteria. These criteria guarantee four essential freedoms:" is just off the cliff. He's claiming that all the OSI licenses jibe with the GNU Projects or Free Software Foundation's definition of free software. A counterexample is any BSD or MIT licensed software which has users that do not have those freedoms due to receiving only a binary. Both OSI and FSF agree that those licenses are, respectively, open source and free, but the FSF will not agree that those licenses preserve those freedoms. BSD-licensed software is free because it's GPL-compatible: a GPLed program can use BSD-licensed pieces. Since OSI burst on the scene some quarter century ago, pushing the open source rhetoric and agenda, they permanently locked horns with Stallman and his Free Software crusade. The OSI has its own definition of what is open source: https://opensource.org/definition-annotated/ https://opensource.org/definition-annotated/ The obvious conclusion is that the author is barely starting to be knowledgeable in this area. And, no, software is not exhaustively partitioned into open source and proprietary. A binary executable (or ROM image or whatever) can land into the public domain. Then you have non-proprietary code that isn't open source because there is no source.

kemitchell 3y ago

Historically, not even the Open Source Initiative tried to define "open source" this way. There were licenses commentators agreed met their definition that they did not approve---open source but not OSI-approved. See also "license proliferation". There's also the whole issue of "public domain". Is CC0 code "proprietary"? And that's setting aside the more basic issues of whether an organization like OSI can impose its definition on the universe, whether the definition it's been trying to impose really works or just sounds good, and whether that's really a legal spec or a political document. The world is messy. It does not owe us the luxury of clear binaries.

jacknews 3y ago

Bah, I was expecting DIY washing-machine plans, detergent recipes, etc.

electricant 3y ago
Me too :D

noduerme 3y ago

I feel like we just need new terminology. Visible source, for example. As the author says, "There's absolutely no problem with proprietary software". To me, there is a problem with it under some circumstances if I can't inspect the source. A lot of times you aren't including it in your own code, you're just using it in your toolchain and you want to make sure it isn't poisoned. "Open source" as a phrase has become a stand-in for being able to check the source, but obviously as the author points out it's a misnomer, and can be used for misdirection. Why can't we just call it "visible source" when this is the case, to avoid confusion or false marketing?

commoner 3y ago
Wouldn't "visible source" be exactly the same thing as "source-available"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software

RandomGerm4n 3y ago

I think the term the author is really looking for would be free software or libre software. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

chrismsimpson 3y ago

The opening sentence is hyperbolic and wrong, there is at least one additional category of source code that is neither proprietary nor open source: public domain. This entire article lost me after that initial overreach.

Sankozi 3y ago
The first sentence also contradicts the first image. It is really hard to continue reading after spotting such glaring mistakes at the beginning of the article.