3 ms·

That's the problem with the term "open source". It is ambiguous and can mean anything from public domain to source available. If you just allow people to look

by m463 2y ago

That's the problem with the term "open source". It is ambiguous and can mean anything from public domain to source available. If you just allow people to look at the source, you can call it "open source" and nobody can really argue. If you did that and called it GPL, things would be different.

hnarn 2y ago
It's certainly not ambiguous, but the reason why companies like CockroachDB and others would like to make it appear so certainly is obvious. Anyone confused can just be referred to "The Open Source Definition"[1] by the OSI. [1]: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
- m463 2y ago
  that is one definition. It's like saying "freedom". reading this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition "the definition is the most common standard for open-source software." It is not exclusive. saying "open source" does not describe a license. It is a generic term. And the point is that unless someone points to a standard or a license, they can call their software open source, just show you the source with restrictions and use ambiguity to do different things than expected.
  - hnarn 2y ago
    It’s not like “freedom” because open source software was a term invented only a few decades ago. Definitions that stray from this definition do so for a very obvious reason in every case I’ve ever seen, and that reason is profit. You can’t just take a well established term and say “well actually I don’t agree” and don’t expect to annoy people. If you don’t agree with the ideas of FLOSS then use something else and call it something else. As for your last part, the top answer of this SE question answers it nicely: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/8367/is-the-term-open-source-a-trademark https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/8367/is-the-t...

by m463 2y ago

hnarn 2y ago

It's certainly not ambiguous, but the reason why companies like CockroachDB and others would like to make it appear so certainly is obvious. Anyone confused can just be referred to "The Open Source Definition"[1] by the OSI. [1]: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd

m463 2y ago
that is one definition. It's like saying "freedom". reading this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition "the definition is the most common standard for open-source software." It is not exclusive. saying "open source" does not describe a license. It is a generic term. And the point is that unless someone points to a standard or a license, they can call their software open source, just show you the source with restrictions and use ambiguity to do different things than expected.
- hnarn 2y ago
  It’s not like “freedom” because open source software was a term invented only a few decades ago. Definitions that stray from this definition do so for a very obvious reason in every case I’ve ever seen, and that reason is profit. You can’t just take a well established term and say “well actually I don’t agree” and don’t expect to annoy people. If you don’t agree with the ideas of FLOSS then use something else and call it something else. As for your last part, the top answer of this SE question answers it nicely: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/8367/is-the-term-open-source-a-trademark https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/8367/is-the-t...