4 ms·
Aren't those two interchangeable?
by efilife 3y ago
Aren't those two interchangeable?
- bawolff 3y agoNo
- darby_eight 3y agoThey are. The change is that the source is no longer (as?) free.
- speedgoose 3y agoNo really. Many proprietary software are source available but far from being open source. Even Microsoft Windows is source available if you are an important customer: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sharedsource/default.aspx https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sharedsource/default.aspx A bit more public and open to anyone is Unreal Engine's source code: https://dev.epicgames.com/documentation/en-us/unreal-engine/downloading-unreal-engine-source-code https://dev.epicgames.com/documentation/en-us/unreal-engine/...
- gcau 3y agoTo a lot of people (if not the majority outside hacker-news), yes.
- mort96 3y agoWhy is the opinion of people unfamiliar with the field of programming (i.e the majority outside hacker news) interesting?
- gcau 3y agoYou're implying the majority of programmers are HN users, not true ofcourse. HN is just a different, possibly older breed compared to the average programmer. I would say it's not even debatable that the majority of programmers would still consider this open source (since the source is still open), and haven't heard of the term source available. The more accurate statement is, its no longer free (as in freedom).
- mort96 3y agoIncorrect. I'm implying that the majority of HN users are programmers. The majority of people on HN are programmers, the majority of people not on HN are not programmers, the majority of programmers are not on HN. I can't speak on what the majority of programmers think. Isn't the opinion of people in the open source community the interesting one?
- gcau 3y agoPerhaps you thought I meant the majority of all people, I meant the majority of all programmers outside HN (hold a different definition of open source than the more extreme one used here). Not that it matters - but I would say non-programmers have an even higher percentage of people with a different definition. I mean sure, the more upset reactions from the more invested parties are the more interesting ones. I just take issue with people fighting to use a more-incorrect, less-used definition which serves no purpose other than to try make entities like Redis look bad.
- cthalupa 3y agoNope. This is tied to the whole "Free as in speech, not beer" thing. Open Source has core definitions around the freedoms (the "speech") allowed to people when making use of that source code. Source available makes the source code available for free (the "beer") along with certain specific freedoms, but not all of the freedoms that would be required to be Open Source. Whether or not you think those missing freedoms are important is a matter of personal opinion, I suppose. I think they are, which is why I try to avoid source available software if there is a reasonable open source alternative.
- kelnos 3y agoSource available need not be free as in beer, though. A company can charge for it, and of course restrict distribution.
- cthalupa 3y agoVery true. I suppose I should have clarified that source available in the context of a lot of these formerly open source projects, and not as a blanket term.
- darby_eight 3y agoYou seem to be conflating open source with free software—open source implies free as in beer, not speech.
- byyll 3y agoYes, except some people are trying to redefine English. Open source means the source is open - you can see it.
- mort96 3y agoFamously, "open" is usually considered to be the same as "visible". When people say that a door is open, they typically mean that they can see the door.
- byyll 3y agoDoors are not code but using the same analogy, yes, "open" door would mean the ability to see inside. Not to steal things from inside and resell them.