4 ms·

That's what open source is. I have the application and I have the source code.

sleepycatgirl 2y ago
Nope. It restricts modifications one can do, and how to distribute it. There is quite a stark difference between source available, and open source.
- praveenperera 2y ago
  You can modify however you want, you just can't turn around and sell it.
  - josephcsible 2y ago
    No you can't. You're banned from removing their payment nag.
    - skeledrew 2y ago
      Why would you want to remove it? Do you reasonably see yourself digging into the code to remove that bit, rebuilding and reinstalling, compared to tapping "I have paid" once to dismiss (ideally after you actually have paid)?
kvdveer 2y ago
You're missing "and I can use the source". Without that freedom, you really don't have the benefits of open source. This is commonly referred to as "source available".
Onawa 2y ago
Nope, that's 'source available'. Open source usually means a non-restrictive license, ala https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd.
- lowkey 2y ago
  Why is the OSI definition considered canonical? I mean the OSI: - didn’t invent the term open-source, they co-opted it from Christine Peterson who is not even a member of OSI - was founded by secret charter members and is funded by closed-source tech giants like Google, Apple, and Microsoft who make billions exploiting open-source software while giving virtually nothing back in return - is heavily influenced by these same corporate giants who steer decisions such as the definition of open-source for their personal profit above the needs of society
  - thesuperbigfrog 2y ago
    >> Why is the OSI definition considered canonical? 'The introduction of the term "open source software" was a deliberate effort to make this field of endeavor more understandable to newcomers and to business, which was viewed as necessary to its spread to a broader community of users. The problem with the main earlier label, "free software," was not its political connotations, but that—to newcomers—its seeming focus on price is distracting. A term was needed that focuses on the key issue of source code and that does not immediately confuse those new to the concept. The first term that came along at the right time and fulfilled these requirements was rapidly adopted: open source.' Source: https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source-software https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source... This is from Christine Peterson's published account of how the term 'open source' came into popular usage. The term 'open source' in popular usage as defined by the Open Source Definition (https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd) has been in use for more than 25 years now. Let FUTO keep their "source first" license and use it to forward their goals, but do not create confusion by trying to co-opt the well-known and broadly understood meaning of "open source".
  - lowkey 2y ago
    The inventor of the term "open source software” defined it as software which includes the freedom to view, modify, and distribute the software's source code. She made no mention of the ability to commercialize without compensation. Those terms were only added in the OSI’s Open Source Definition (OSD)
card_zero 2y ago
You might think so, I might think so, but apparently there's some gatekeeping about the term dating back to its invention in the 20th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licenses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-so... "This article may be confusing or unclear to readers." Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source - Richard Stallman argues the "obvious meaning" of term "open source" is that the source code is public/accessible for inspection, without necessarily any other rights granted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_terms_for_free_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_terms_for_free_sof... - In a 1998 strategy session in California, "open-source software" was selected by Todd Anderson, Larry Augustin, Jon Hall, Sam Ockman, Christine Peterson, and Eric S. Raymond. Richard Stallman had not been invited. I'm getting downvoted now for dissenting. :D
- prophesi 2y ago
  I would also agree that the common sense definition of open source should be public/accessible code. But FOSS is a well-established movement and anyone involved with software development should be well-acquainted with Free vs Open.
  - card_zero 2y ago
    So you mean the actual definition should not be the common sense one? That's probably pragmatic, yes.
    - Brian_K_White 2y ago
      Almost every word has some special meaning depending on the context it's used in. This is not controvercial. This is a silly argument to try to make a thing out of.
      - 2y ago

Nope. It restricts modifications one can do, and how to distribute it. There is quite a stark difference between source available, and open source.

praveenperera 2y ago
You can modify however you want, you just can't turn around and sell it.
- josephcsible 2y ago
  No you can't. You're banned from removing their payment nag.
  - skeledrew 2y ago
    Why would you want to remove it? Do you reasonably see yourself digging into the code to remove that bit, rebuilding and reinstalling, compared to tapping "I have paid" once to dismiss (ideally after you actually have paid)?

kvdveer 2y ago

You're missing "and I can use the source". Without that freedom, you really don't have the benefits of open source. This is commonly referred to as "source available".

Onawa 2y ago

Nope, that's 'source available'. Open source usually means a non-restrictive license, ala https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd.

lowkey 2y ago
Why is the OSI definition considered canonical? I mean the OSI: - didn’t invent the term open-source, they co-opted it from Christine Peterson who is not even a member of OSI - was founded by secret charter members and is funded by closed-source tech giants like Google, Apple, and Microsoft who make billions exploiting open-source software while giving virtually nothing back in return - is heavily influenced by these same corporate giants who steer decisions such as the definition of open-source for their personal profit above the needs of society
- thesuperbigfrog 2y ago
  >> Why is the OSI definition considered canonical? 'The introduction of the term "open source software" was a deliberate effort to make this field of endeavor more understandable to newcomers and to business, which was viewed as necessary to its spread to a broader community of users. The problem with the main earlier label, "free software," was not its political connotations, but that—to newcomers—its seeming focus on price is distracting. A term was needed that focuses on the key issue of source code and that does not immediately confuse those new to the concept. The first term that came along at the right time and fulfilled these requirements was rapidly adopted: open source.' Source: https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source-software https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source... This is from Christine Peterson's published account of how the term 'open source' came into popular usage. The term 'open source' in popular usage as defined by the Open Source Definition (https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd) has been in use for more than 25 years now. Let FUTO keep their "source first" license and use it to forward their goals, but do not create confusion by trying to co-opt the well-known and broadly understood meaning of "open source".
- lowkey 2y ago
  The inventor of the term "open source software” defined it as software which includes the freedom to view, modify, and distribute the software's source code. She made no mention of the ability to commercialize without compensation. Those terms were only added in the OSI’s Open Source Definition (OSD)

card_zero 2y ago

You might think so, I might think so, but apparently there's some gatekeeping about the term dating back to its invention in the 20th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licenses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-so... "This article may be confusing or unclear to readers." Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source - Richard Stallman argues the "obvious meaning" of term "open source" is that the source code is public/accessible for inspection, without necessarily any other rights granted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_terms_for_free_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_terms_for_free_sof... - In a 1998 strategy session in California, "open-source software" was selected by Todd Anderson, Larry Augustin, Jon Hall, Sam Ockman, Christine Peterson, and Eric S. Raymond. Richard Stallman had not been invited. I'm getting downvoted now for dissenting. :D

prophesi 2y ago
I would also agree that the common sense definition of open source should be public/accessible code. But FOSS is a well-established movement and anyone involved with software development should be well-acquainted with Free vs Open.
- card_zero 2y ago
  So you mean the actual definition should not be the common sense one? That's probably pragmatic, yes.
  - Brian_K_White 2y ago
    Almost every word has some special meaning depending on the context it's used in. This is not controvercial. This is a silly argument to try to make a thing out of.
    - 2y ago