4 ms·

A judge saying something once in the history of the world doesn't make it so that you can force language on others. Most people that I've interacted that work i

by vasco 3y ago

A judge saying something once in the history of the world doesn't make it so that you can force language on others. Most people that I've interacted that work in software refer to "source available" as open source in every day speech, and unless they were preparing legal documents that's what they'd say. If you include normal people that don't work in software, then even more likely the usage is the one you're complaining about. You sound like this: https://stallman-copypasta.github.io/ https://stallman-copypasta.github.io/

6510 3y ago
> Most people that I've interacted that work in software refer to "source available" as open source Proprietary software and closed source refer to the same thing. Most people you've interacted are wrong. sorry...
- vasco 3y ago
  Luckily I didn't mention either "closed source" or "proprietary software" in my comment. I mentioned that people colloquially use "open source" to refer to any code base that has source available to read. Maybe there's some hidden point you're trying to make by associating these concepts but it'd be easier if you said it plainly. Other than that I think you find that people in real life don't tend to be exact in their use of language all the time, and calling understandable imprecisions "wrong" tends to decrease the number of friends you get.
  - alexvoda 3y ago
    People distort words to the point of meaningless unless the use of those words are defended. "Open Source" is a term that is actively being defended. The history of the term is very clear. The term was coined by Christine Peterson in a group session in 1998 with Todd Anderson, Larry Augustin, Jon Hall, Sam Ockman, Michael Tiemann, and Eric S. Raymond. Months later the OSI was created by the same people in order to manage that definition. There is nothing unclear here. "Open source" is defined by OSI and it has been defined by them from the very start. If communities let others distort words, those words loose their meaning. As a well known example, the word "woke" which has long been abandoned by the community that coined it. "Open source" is an actively defended term by the organisation that originally defined it and the community around them.
    - vasco 3y ago
      Well if you're actively consciously defending it like that I can only wish you good luck. I guess if that's the goal comparing you to Stallman with GNU is more of a compliment than anything.
      - _5ygc 3y ago
        I’m not a fan of Stallman by any measure — his posture has often put people off some licenses and made GPL a bit problematic —, but even I think you’re engaging in unreasonable doublespeak. The web is full of HTML, CSS, and JavaScript you can see the source for; and for which you can be sued by copying for your own commercial gain. By your definition, websites are open source; and yet, they are proprietary work. Something having its source open doesn’t make it Open Source. This kind of doublespeak reeks of Reddit-grade corporate astroturfing. The Open Source licenses are defined and protected in a certain way. You can’t just say “oh, me and my friends don’t think of it like that” and expect to be correct. I can’t build an app scamming people out of currency by abusing ISO 4217, and then excuse myself under “me and the people I know disagree with ISO”. OSI protects the licenses, the Vegan Society certifies what ‘vegan’ means, ISO does ISO things, and so on. It’s okay to admit we’re wrong or ignorant, so I won’t pretend I’m an expert in this area. I also wouldn’t call anyone Stallman just because they are defending a term that deserves protection. “Source available” but not under the terms of an OSI license is NOT compliant with the term.
  - 6510 3y ago
    > Maybe there's some hidden point you're trying to make by associating these concepts but it'd be easier if you said it plainly. I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious. As "proprietary software" and "closed source" refer to the same it wouldn't be logical to use the opposite "open source" to refer to "proprietary software". People don't have to be exact in their language, the point is for the other to understand what you mean. I consider it the most polite and the most constructive to use the definition from the believers themselves. Academic, as in relating to education and scholarship. Anarchy, as in without Archons. Archons, as in leaders of ancient Greek city-states. Let the communist define what it is, let the socialist, let the Jew, let the ufologist etc There is the Open Source Initiative, the page starts with what they consider Open Source. https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/ Besides practicality the website also states: Never use or register any trademarks that are confusingly similar to, or a play on, the OSI or OSI Logo. An example of unacceptable is given: "Open Source Project"
mx20 3y ago
Normal people don't even know what to do with the code. If a project is source open or not is completely irrelevant to them. To them usually it's way more relevant that open source software can be picked up and further developed by any other software developer and that it's free.
- alexvoda 3y ago
  In this case, the licence they have chosen explicitly: - only grants the right "to access and use the code solely for the purposes of review, compilation and non-commercial distribution." - only grants the right "provide the code to anyone else and publish excerpts of it for the purposes of review, compilation and non-commercial distribution" - "you are not entitled to use or do anything with the code for any commercial or other purpose, other than review, compilation and non-commercial distribution" This breaks all 4 freedoms the free software definition and at least aspects 1,3,4 and 6 of the OSD. From a legal POV, this project is unforkable. You are not allowed to modify this in any way (even just for your own use). Furthermore, you are not even allowed to use this internally (unmodified and without ever distributing it). I am not even sure it is possible to legally be a user of the software for its intended purpose. The license states clearly that "other than review, compilation and non-commercial distribution" you "are not entitled to use or do anything" and that includes using the compiled result to watch videos. This is about as restrictive as the MS-RSL. Basically, the only thing you can do with it is archive it and look at it. (and wait lifetime + 70 years until it becomes public domain)

by vasco 3y ago

6510 3y ago

> Most people that I've interacted that work in software refer to "source available" as open source Proprietary software and closed source refer to the same thing. Most people you've interacted are wrong. sorry...

vasco 3y ago
Luckily I didn't mention either "closed source" or "proprietary software" in my comment. I mentioned that people colloquially use "open source" to refer to any code base that has source available to read. Maybe there's some hidden point you're trying to make by associating these concepts but it'd be easier if you said it plainly. Other than that I think you find that people in real life don't tend to be exact in their use of language all the time, and calling understandable imprecisions "wrong" tends to decrease the number of friends you get.
- alexvoda 3y ago
  People distort words to the point of meaningless unless the use of those words are defended. "Open Source" is a term that is actively being defended. The history of the term is very clear. The term was coined by Christine Peterson in a group session in 1998 with Todd Anderson, Larry Augustin, Jon Hall, Sam Ockman, Michael Tiemann, and Eric S. Raymond. Months later the OSI was created by the same people in order to manage that definition. There is nothing unclear here. "Open source" is defined by OSI and it has been defined by them from the very start. If communities let others distort words, those words loose their meaning. As a well known example, the word "woke" which has long been abandoned by the community that coined it. "Open source" is an actively defended term by the organisation that originally defined it and the community around them.
  - vasco 3y ago
    Well if you're actively consciously defending it like that I can only wish you good luck. I guess if that's the goal comparing you to Stallman with GNU is more of a compliment than anything.
    - _5ygc 3y ago
      I’m not a fan of Stallman by any measure — his posture has often put people off some licenses and made GPL a bit problematic —, but even I think you’re engaging in unreasonable doublespeak. The web is full of HTML, CSS, and JavaScript you can see the source for; and for which you can be sued by copying for your own commercial gain. By your definition, websites are open source; and yet, they are proprietary work. Something having its source open doesn’t make it Open Source. This kind of doublespeak reeks of Reddit-grade corporate astroturfing. The Open Source licenses are defined and protected in a certain way. You can’t just say “oh, me and my friends don’t think of it like that” and expect to be correct. I can’t build an app scamming people out of currency by abusing ISO 4217, and then excuse myself under “me and the people I know disagree with ISO”. OSI protects the licenses, the Vegan Society certifies what ‘vegan’ means, ISO does ISO things, and so on. It’s okay to admit we’re wrong or ignorant, so I won’t pretend I’m an expert in this area. I also wouldn’t call anyone Stallman just because they are defending a term that deserves protection. “Source available” but not under the terms of an OSI license is NOT compliant with the term.
- 6510 3y ago
  > Maybe there's some hidden point you're trying to make by associating these concepts but it'd be easier if you said it plainly. I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious. As "proprietary software" and "closed source" refer to the same it wouldn't be logical to use the opposite "open source" to refer to "proprietary software". People don't have to be exact in their language, the point is for the other to understand what you mean. I consider it the most polite and the most constructive to use the definition from the believers themselves. Academic, as in relating to education and scholarship. Anarchy, as in without Archons. Archons, as in leaders of ancient Greek city-states. Let the communist define what it is, let the socialist, let the Jew, let the ufologist etc There is the Open Source Initiative, the page starts with what they consider Open Source. https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/ Besides practicality the website also states: Never use or register any trademarks that are confusingly similar to, or a play on, the OSI or OSI Logo. An example of unacceptable is given: "Open Source Project"

mx20 3y ago

Normal people don't even know what to do with the code. If a project is source open or not is completely irrelevant to them. To them usually it's way more relevant that open source software can be picked up and further developed by any other software developer and that it's free.

alexvoda 3y ago
In this case, the licence they have chosen explicitly: - only grants the right "to access and use the code solely for the purposes of review, compilation and non-commercial distribution." - only grants the right "provide the code to anyone else and publish excerpts of it for the purposes of review, compilation and non-commercial distribution" - "you are not entitled to use or do anything with the code for any commercial or other purpose, other than review, compilation and non-commercial distribution" This breaks all 4 freedoms the free software definition and at least aspects 1,3,4 and 6 of the OSD. From a legal POV, this project is unforkable. You are not allowed to modify this in any way (even just for your own use). Furthermore, you are not even allowed to use this internally (unmodified and without ever distributing it). I am not even sure it is possible to legally be a user of the software for its intended purpose. The license states clearly that "other than review, compilation and non-commercial distribution" you "are not entitled to use or do anything" and that includes using the compiled result to watch videos. This is about as restrictive as the MS-RSL. Basically, the only thing you can do with it is archive it and look at it. (and wait lifetime + 70 years until it becomes public domain)