5 ms·

I think the term the industry needs to embrace is "Early Source": https://breckyunits.com/earlySource.html https://breckyunits.com/earlySource.html Make everyt

by breck 2y ago

I think the term the industry needs to embrace is "Early Source": https://breckyunits.com/earlySource.html https://breckyunits.com/earlySource.html Make everything public domain, fully open source, just delayed by N years.

dudeinjapan 2y ago
Will be lovely to have the source N years after AGI terminates humanity.
- breck 2y ago
  Lol. You could write a sci-fi novel with a world of cyborgs where the age of all cyborgs is N (when they first got access to the source). And primitives are called "Pre-Ns"
  - dudeinjapan 2y ago
    Not too shabby an idea!!
ezekg 2y ago
There is a term for this, no? https://opensource.org/dosp https://opensource.org/dosp
- breck 2y ago
  Interesting! I hadn't seen that term. Thanks! I don't like their implementation though. If one thinks from natural principles, one has to reject the idea of licenses on ideas. Early source is in harmony with nature. Also "Early Source" rolls off the tongue better than "Delayed Open Source Publication". ;)
  - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
    > Also "Early Source" rolls off the tongue better than "Delayed Open Source Publication". Yeah, but nobody will know what "Early Source" means until you explain it, whereas the latter makes perfect sense on first reading.
    - breck 2y ago
      There was a time when no one knew what "Open Source" meant.
      - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
        After decades, people still barely know what Open Source means[0]; if you can I think it's much better to make things as obvious as possible, like ex. the Creative Commons licenses - nobody has to ask what the "Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International" license means. [0] I remain surprised at the number of people, even on HN, who seem to think Open Source is the same as Source Available.
        breck 2y ago
        Fair points. > barely know what Open Source means Perhaps there is no license that makes sense because licenses on ideas do not make sense. You simply cannot define them logically from natural principles without having to concede that they are intellectual slavery. Ideas on licenses have never made sense and never will.
        yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
        > Perhaps there is no license that makes sense because licenses on ideas do not make sense. You simply cannot define them logically from natural principles without having to concede that they are intellectual slavery. Ideas on licenses have never made sense and never will. No, the idea is fine - I mean, sure I'd be fine[0] with totally abolishing copyright, but in the world we live in it makes perfect sense. I think it really is just a naming problem, if anything. [0] Probably.
mort96 2y ago
Why?

by breck 2y ago

dudeinjapan 2y ago

Will be lovely to have the source N years after AGI terminates humanity.

breck 2y ago
Lol. You could write a sci-fi novel with a world of cyborgs where the age of all cyborgs is N (when they first got access to the source). And primitives are called "Pre-Ns"
- dudeinjapan 2y ago
  Not too shabby an idea!!

ezekg 2y ago

There is a term for this, no? https://opensource.org/dosp https://opensource.org/dosp

breck 2y ago
Interesting! I hadn't seen that term. Thanks! I don't like their implementation though. If one thinks from natural principles, one has to reject the idea of licenses on ideas. Early source is in harmony with nature. Also "Early Source" rolls off the tongue better than "Delayed Open Source Publication". ;)
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
  > Also "Early Source" rolls off the tongue better than "Delayed Open Source Publication". Yeah, but nobody will know what "Early Source" means until you explain it, whereas the latter makes perfect sense on first reading.
  - breck 2y ago
    There was a time when no one knew what "Open Source" meant.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
      After decades, people still barely know what Open Source means[0]; if you can I think it's much better to make things as obvious as possible, like ex. the Creative Commons licenses - nobody has to ask what the "Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International" license means. [0] I remain surprised at the number of people, even on HN, who seem to think Open Source is the same as Source Available.
      - breck 2y ago
        Fair points. > barely know what Open Source means Perhaps there is no license that makes sense because licenses on ideas do not make sense. You simply cannot define them logically from natural principles without having to concede that they are intellectual slavery. Ideas on licenses have never made sense and never will.
        yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
        > Perhaps there is no license that makes sense because licenses on ideas do not make sense. You simply cannot define them logically from natural principles without having to concede that they are intellectual slavery. Ideas on licenses have never made sense and never will. No, the idea is fine - I mean, sure I'd be fine[0] with totally abolishing copyright, but in the world we live in it makes perfect sense. I think it really is just a naming problem, if anything. [0] Probably.

mort96 2y ago

Why?