4 ms·

Yes, it does. It's the opposite of closed source, and the meaning is implied by the word open. OSI isn't authoritative of the term.

by tcfhgj 3y ago

alexvoda 3y ago
This debate has been had many many times before and you are simply wrong. Your effort is malicious. Regardless of what other uses the word open has/had, "open source" was defined by OSI and they are authoritative over the term.
- tcfhgj 3y ago
  Malicious is the attempt to restrict open source to floss and start a shitstorm about open source but not floss software, because it prevents transparency for software where floss isn't an option. If I define climate neutral as climate positive, climate neutral doesn't become climate positive nor do I get authority of the term climate neutral.
  - alexvoda 3y ago
    And yet that is absolutely the kind of bullshit you are pulling. Thank you for denouncing yourself. Some terms were defined by a community and their use defended. Others were defined by a community, appropriated by others, distorted by others and subsequently abandoned by the original community. And yet others, were abandoned and then reclaimed by the original community. "Open Source" is in the first category, defined by OSI and defended by the FLOSS community. It is actively being defended, and fish much bigger than you have failed to topple the community.
    - tcfhgj 3y ago
      "And yet that is absolutely the kind of bullshit you are pulling. " Nope it's what you and OSI try to do.
wokwokwok 3y ago
I honestly don’t care if it is or not, but this has been discussed to death with regard to unreal and the consensus has been (from epic) to consistently refer to the source as “available on GitHub” not as “open source”, because that gives people an incorrect impression of the permissiveness of the license. Is this a hill you really want to die on? It doesn’t matter at all. The “can see code” = “must be open source” argument is stupid because it’s entirely opinion based. You cannot be right about it. It depends what you choose to define “open source” as. If you define it as some arbitrary thing (eg. I can read the source code) then of course you’re right. …but you can’t force other people to accept your arbitrary definition. You can only have an opinion about it. Same as anyone else. Is it really worth the argument? Source available is unambiguous, being explicit (“source can be download from GitHub”) I means you don’t have to waste your time on arguments like this for, what seems, truely trivial reasons.
- tcfhgj 3y ago
  "because that gives people an incorrect impression of the permissiveness of the license" How does it? "Source available is unambiguous" It's not, because it could be hidden behind a pay wall.
  - alexvoda 3y ago
    If it's behind a pay wall it's not available, it's closed. But you may call source-available software whatever you want, just not open source unless it's under and OSI-approved license. You can use any words other than the phrase "open source" to be as unambiguous as you want.
  - wokwokwok 3y ago
    I don’t understand. If you feel it’s not explicit enough be more explicit (source is available from xxx of you login or whatever). If you want a legal opinion, get a lawyer, that’s what they do. If you just want to do what’s “normal”, take a successful project (eg. Unreal) and do what they do. It seems like a total non issue.

Yes, it does. It's the opposite of closed source, and the meaning is implied by the word open. OSI isn't authoritative of the term.

by tcfhgj 3y ago

Yes, it does. It's the opposite of closed source, and the meaning is implied by the word open. OSI isn't authoritative of the term.

alexvoda 3y ago

This debate has been had many many times before and you are simply wrong. Your effort is malicious. Regardless of what other uses the word open has/had, "open source" was defined by OSI and they are authoritative over the term.

tcfhgj 3y ago
Malicious is the attempt to restrict open source to floss and start a shitstorm about open source but not floss software, because it prevents transparency for software where floss isn't an option. If I define climate neutral as climate positive, climate neutral doesn't become climate positive nor do I get authority of the term climate neutral.
- alexvoda 3y ago
  And yet that is absolutely the kind of bullshit you are pulling. Thank you for denouncing yourself. Some terms were defined by a community and their use defended. Others were defined by a community, appropriated by others, distorted by others and subsequently abandoned by the original community. And yet others, were abandoned and then reclaimed by the original community. "Open Source" is in the first category, defined by OSI and defended by the FLOSS community. It is actively being defended, and fish much bigger than you have failed to topple the community.
  - tcfhgj 3y ago
    "And yet that is absolutely the kind of bullshit you are pulling. " Nope it's what you and OSI try to do.

wokwokwok 3y ago

I honestly don’t care if it is or not, but this has been discussed to death with regard to unreal and the consensus has been (from epic) to consistently refer to the source as “available on GitHub” not as “open source”, because that gives people an incorrect impression of the permissiveness of the license. Is this a hill you really want to die on? It doesn’t matter at all. The “can see code” = “must be open source” argument is stupid because it’s entirely opinion based. You cannot be right about it. It depends what you choose to define “open source” as. If you define it as some arbitrary thing (eg. I can read the source code) then of course you’re right. …but you can’t force other people to accept your arbitrary definition. You can only have an opinion about it. Same as anyone else. Is it really worth the argument? Source available is unambiguous, being explicit (“source can be download from GitHub”) I means you don’t have to waste your time on arguments like this for, what seems, truely trivial reasons.

tcfhgj 3y ago
"because that gives people an incorrect impression of the permissiveness of the license" How does it? "Source available is unambiguous" It's not, because it could be hidden behind a pay wall.
- alexvoda 3y ago
  If it's behind a pay wall it's not available, it's closed. But you may call source-available software whatever you want, just not open source unless it's under and OSI-approved license. You can use any words other than the phrase "open source" to be as unambiguous as you want.
- wokwokwok 3y ago
  I don’t understand. If you feel it’s not explicit enough be more explicit (source is available from xxx of you login or whatever). If you want a legal opinion, get a lawyer, that’s what they do. If you just want to do what’s “normal”, take a successful project (eg. Unreal) and do what they do. It seems like a total non issue.