3 ms·

So while the AMD driver is open source, the community is basically excluded from contributing? Should someone decided that they'd start working through the cod

So while the AMD driver is open source, the community is basically excluded from contributing? Should someone decided that they'd start working through the code, removing duplicate code and clean up headers, functions and abstraction, they work would either be rejected, or undone with the next AMD code dump?

kube-system 3y ago
A lot of open source projects work that way. Open source means you get access to the source and get to make changes for your own use. It doesn't mean you get to force anyone else to merge your code.
- mrweasel 3y ago
  > It doesn't mean you get to force anyone else to merge your code. Sure, you can fork the code if you really feel that strongly about it. My main "issue" is that it basically removes one of the big benefits of open source, that we can collaborate and do better as a collective. If it's just a big code dump that other kernel developers can't really touch it's more "source code is available" than actual open source.
  - acrispino 3y ago
    It's not open source unless you can have it your way? That's too picky, for me
  - kube-system 3y ago
    Open source is a licensing model, not a community organization model. Collaboration is not a benefit of open source, it's a benefit of collaboration software and a group of people who welcome collaboration. Almost all of the people who like collaborating on software use open source licensing. But there are plenty of people who use open source licensing who are not interested in collaborating. For example, it is very normal for projects maintained by someone with a narrow focus, or projects with limited or formally organized resources to not accept PRs. When you send someone a PR, you are demanding that they do work for you to review and merge. Open source licensing does not mandate that they do this. Heck, most open source licenses even disclaim warranty to avoid obligating the authors of even doing work that the law would otherwise require them to do. Now yes, some people will help you with problems. This is because they're nice, not because it's open source.
  - elteto 3y ago
    The fundamental premise of open source is full access to the source with the possibility to make changes and redistribute those changes [0]. Anything else, including collaboration to improve the code, is a nice cherry on top but not consequential to the concept of open source. [0] https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/
aleph_minus_one 3y ago
> So while the AMD driver is open source, the community is basically excluded from contributing? Because it is open source, but not open contribution. Open source vs. open contribution are orthogonal concepts: the former is about licensing, the latter about the organization of the development process.

kube-system 3y ago

A lot of open source projects work that way. Open source means you get access to the source and get to make changes for your own use. It doesn't mean you get to force anyone else to merge your code.

mrweasel 3y ago
> It doesn't mean you get to force anyone else to merge your code. Sure, you can fork the code if you really feel that strongly about it. My main "issue" is that it basically removes one of the big benefits of open source, that we can collaborate and do better as a collective. If it's just a big code dump that other kernel developers can't really touch it's more "source code is available" than actual open source.
- acrispino 3y ago
  It's not open source unless you can have it your way? That's too picky, for me
- kube-system 3y ago
  Open source is a licensing model, not a community organization model. Collaboration is not a benefit of open source, it's a benefit of collaboration software and a group of people who welcome collaboration. Almost all of the people who like collaborating on software use open source licensing. But there are plenty of people who use open source licensing who are not interested in collaborating. For example, it is very normal for projects maintained by someone with a narrow focus, or projects with limited or formally organized resources to not accept PRs. When you send someone a PR, you are demanding that they do work for you to review and merge. Open source licensing does not mandate that they do this. Heck, most open source licenses even disclaim warranty to avoid obligating the authors of even doing work that the law would otherwise require them to do. Now yes, some people will help you with problems. This is because they're nice, not because it's open source.
- elteto 3y ago
  The fundamental premise of open source is full access to the source with the possibility to make changes and redistribute those changes [0]. Anything else, including collaboration to improve the code, is a nice cherry on top but not consequential to the concept of open source. [0] https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/

aleph_minus_one 3y ago

> So while the AMD driver is open source, the community is basically excluded from contributing? Because it is open source, but not open contribution. Open source vs. open contribution are orthogonal concepts: the former is about licensing, the latter about the organization of the development process.