3 ms·

Source-available has a very misleading nature, and as such is commonly used for openwashing. You can read the source, but you can't really do anything with it.

Source-available has a very misleading nature, and as such is commonly used for openwashing. You can read the source, but you can't really do anything with it. That's not how it usually is when you are given access to the source code. Companies such as Anytype market their source-available product as "Open Code" or similar. They are carefully avoiding the term "Open Source", but they still make many ambiguous claims of openness. Tuist is doing the same thing: > As you might know, we aim to make Tuist a fully open project. > So I think a fully open Tuist platform could unfold this way: [...] The intention is clearly to NOT be fully open. > We can only build the best in class productivity platform if we embrace openness. They are not embracing openness. They are trying to reap the benefits that come with being open, such as code contributions and a higher level of trust, while not actually being open.

ezekg 2y ago
Is source-available more open than closed source? Yes. Is fair source more open than source-available? Yes. Is open source more open than fair source? Yes. I don't see any attempt at communicating otherwise. Nobody is claiming fair source is as open as open source. Fair source is very clearly defined as not being open source, but it is closer to open source than the alternatives, and even becomes open source, and that's a good thing. We should all be happy about that. But people still find fault... The OSI doesn't have a monopoly on the word "open." It has meaning, and in these cases it's being used appropriately. It's not an attempt at openwashing.
- max-privatevoid 2y ago
  It's not Open Source, it's not open. Being "close" to Open Source is completely useless.
  - ezekg 2y ago
    Nonsense. The tens of thousands of people who self-host and contribute to Fair Source software would say otherwise. The world isn't so black and white.

ezekg 2y ago

Is source-available more open than closed source? Yes. Is fair source more open than source-available? Yes. Is open source more open than fair source? Yes. I don't see any attempt at communicating otherwise. Nobody is claiming fair source is as open as open source. Fair source is very clearly defined as not being open source, but it is closer to open source than the alternatives, and even becomes open source, and that's a good thing. We should all be happy about that. But people still find fault... The OSI doesn't have a monopoly on the word "open." It has meaning, and in these cases it's being used appropriately. It's not an attempt at openwashing.

max-privatevoid 2y ago
It's not Open Source, it's not open. Being "close" to Open Source is completely useless.
- ezekg 2y ago
  Nonsense. The tens of thousands of people who self-host and contribute to Fair Source software would say otherwise. The world isn't so black and white.