5 ms·

Still not open source many hours later after multiple people said to put a license on it. Calling something open source when its not is really not okay, and it

by tokai 2y ago

Still not open source many hours later after multiple people said to put a license on it. Calling something open source when its not is really not okay, and it is hurting free and open source software.

dangsux 2y ago
[dead]
ivanvanderbyl 2y ago
What would you call it? Source available?
- croes 2y ago
  Yes
- tokai 2y ago
  I would personally just called it a video game. Free and Open source a issue of copy right. If there's still full copyright (and there's copy right on everything published nomatter if it is explicitly claimed or not) with no license on a piece of software, it has nothing to do with open source. But source available would be the term to use if one wants to point out that the source is on github.
  - meiraleal 2y ago
    Open-source game has a literal meaning.
    - tokai 2y ago
      The code is not open source. It is not an open source game. This is not open to interpretation, as there is no license given.
      - shortrounddev2 2y ago
        Why isn't it open to interpretation? Who made you king of open source software
        franga2000 2y ago
        Terms that have an unambiguous and widely-agreed-upon definition are simply not open to interpretation. The term "open source software" is a technical term and is defined by The Open Source Definition [0], which is accepted by the overwhelming majority of experts in software engineering and software licensing. [0] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
        shortrounddev2 2y ago
        The Open Source Initiative is a hypocritical organization that tried to trademark the term "Open Source" and was denied because they don't control the term and have no stewardship over it. Your interpretation is not accepted by the overwhelming majority of "experts in software engineering" (whatever that means), and I don't know of any way to quantify your claim either. What you are referring to is most likely FOSS, which is a more rigidly defined thing. Open Source, to most people, is a colloquial term that simply means that the source is available to be viewed.
  - segmondy 2y ago
    semantics, "source available" is for closed software that's willing to make source available to their customers. For instance, Microsoft windows is not open source, but if you're an important enough customer, they will make the source available to you. open means there's no restricting for you to read the code.
solcloud 2y ago
Yeah yeah yeah, I am hurting open source, my apology to open source
- lagniappe 2y ago
  >Yeah yeah yeah, I am hurting open source, my apology to open source Not a great response. Do you know where you are right now?
  - solcloud 2y ago
    Maybe I am just waiting for somebody to open PR for adding license cause it looks like everybody is lawyer these days
    - andruby 2y ago
      What license do you want to share your work under? MIT? GPL? There's a couple of trade-offs in that choice. Github has an overview of some of your options: https://github.com/readme/guides/open-source-licensing https://github.com/readme/guides/open-source-licensing
    - Vinnl 2y ago
      Ah, well, if that's all: https://github.com/solcloud/Counter-Strike/pull/28 https://github.com/solcloud/Counter-Strike/pull/28 (It's kinda weird, because to make a PR, I had to make a fork, and then I added the licence to my fork, even though I'm not allowed to pick the licence, but )
      - fluoridation 2y ago
        It makes me want to start several PRs with conflicting licenses.
        solcloud 2y ago
        bring it :D now I thinks about suing anybody forking repo with licence change :D no seriously it is merged now so world is safe again :)
segmondy 2y ago
It is open source, the source is right there on the repo for anyone to read. It can be open source without being free software, it can be open source without having any license. If the owner has opened their code to the world to read, it's open source.
- linsomniac 2y ago
  It is "source available" not "open source", there's a difference. The term "open source" refers to a particular thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
  - segmondy 2y ago
    I was around before that wiki page was written and know exactly what open source means. I'm not going to play the double speak game on words. open source means you can read the code. period. it doesn't matter if it's free, or if it has a commercial nature or not. free software is software you don't have to pay money to use, it doesn't matter if you have access to the code or not. source available means the source is available on request and with restrictions to keep it private. doesn't matter if the software is free or not.
    - duckmysick 2y ago
      This is what the Jargon File says: > [common; also adj. open-source] Term coined in March 1998 following the Mozilla release to describe software distributed in source under licenses guaranteeing anybody rights to freely use, modify, and redistribute, the code. The intent was to be able to sell the hackers' ways of doing software to industry and the mainstream by avoiding the negative connotations (to suits) of the term “free software”. http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/O/open-source.html http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/O/open-source.html I looks like open source means more that just ability to read the code.
      - jmcqk6 2y ago
        There is no platonic definition for words that make it wrong to use them in a different way. Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. If someone uses a term like "open source" in a way that is clearly different from how you understand the word, that doesn't make them wrong. All it does it highlight a different perspective. You can attempt to tell them that they are wrong to use the term that way. It's changing the topic and distracts from the point, so if that's your goal, go for it. Most people don't react well to it. You can think that they should be okay with it, but people don't tend to react well to that either. it's your choice.
unethical_ban 2y ago
"Hey creator, it's important for open software to be properly licensed, otherwise there can be legal issues. <Insert link to open source license references>"
ajdude 2y ago
https://github.com/solcloud/Counter-Strike/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/solcloud/Counter-Strike/blob/master/LICEN...

by tokai 2y ago

dangsux 2y ago

[dead]

ivanvanderbyl 2y ago

What would you call it? Source available?

croes 2y ago
Yes
tokai 2y ago
I would personally just called it a video game. Free and Open source a issue of copy right. If there's still full copyright (and there's copy right on everything published nomatter if it is explicitly claimed or not) with no license on a piece of software, it has nothing to do with open source. But source available would be the term to use if one wants to point out that the source is on github.
- meiraleal 2y ago
  Open-source game has a literal meaning.
  - tokai 2y ago
    The code is not open source. It is not an open source game. This is not open to interpretation, as there is no license given.
    - shortrounddev2 2y ago
      Why isn't it open to interpretation? Who made you king of open source software
      - franga2000 2y ago
        Terms that have an unambiguous and widely-agreed-upon definition are simply not open to interpretation. The term "open source software" is a technical term and is defined by The Open Source Definition [0], which is accepted by the overwhelming majority of experts in software engineering and software licensing. [0] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
        shortrounddev2 2y ago
        The Open Source Initiative is a hypocritical organization that tried to trademark the term "Open Source" and was denied because they don't control the term and have no stewardship over it. Your interpretation is not accepted by the overwhelming majority of "experts in software engineering" (whatever that means), and I don't know of any way to quantify your claim either. What you are referring to is most likely FOSS, which is a more rigidly defined thing. Open Source, to most people, is a colloquial term that simply means that the source is available to be viewed.
- segmondy 2y ago
  semantics, "source available" is for closed software that's willing to make source available to their customers. For instance, Microsoft windows is not open source, but if you're an important enough customer, they will make the source available to you. open means there's no restricting for you to read the code.

solcloud 2y ago

Yeah yeah yeah, I am hurting open source, my apology to open source

lagniappe 2y ago
>Yeah yeah yeah, I am hurting open source, my apology to open source Not a great response. Do you know where you are right now?
- solcloud 2y ago
  Maybe I am just waiting for somebody to open PR for adding license cause it looks like everybody is lawyer these days
  - andruby 2y ago
    What license do you want to share your work under? MIT? GPL? There's a couple of trade-offs in that choice. Github has an overview of some of your options: https://github.com/readme/guides/open-source-licensing https://github.com/readme/guides/open-source-licensing
  - Vinnl 2y ago
    Ah, well, if that's all: https://github.com/solcloud/Counter-Strike/pull/28 https://github.com/solcloud/Counter-Strike/pull/28 (It's kinda weird, because to make a PR, I had to make a fork, and then I added the licence to my fork, even though I'm not allowed to pick the licence, but )
    - fluoridation 2y ago
      It makes me want to start several PRs with conflicting licenses.
      - solcloud 2y ago
        bring it :D now I thinks about suing anybody forking repo with licence change :D no seriously it is merged now so world is safe again :)

segmondy 2y ago

It is open source, the source is right there on the repo for anyone to read. It can be open source without being free software, it can be open source without having any license. If the owner has opened their code to the world to read, it's open source.

linsomniac 2y ago
It is "source available" not "open source", there's a difference. The term "open source" refers to a particular thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
- segmondy 2y ago
  I was around before that wiki page was written and know exactly what open source means. I'm not going to play the double speak game on words. open source means you can read the code. period. it doesn't matter if it's free, or if it has a commercial nature or not. free software is software you don't have to pay money to use, it doesn't matter if you have access to the code or not. source available means the source is available on request and with restrictions to keep it private. doesn't matter if the software is free or not.
  - duckmysick 2y ago
    This is what the Jargon File says: > [common; also adj. open-source] Term coined in March 1998 following the Mozilla release to describe software distributed in source under licenses guaranteeing anybody rights to freely use, modify, and redistribute, the code. The intent was to be able to sell the hackers' ways of doing software to industry and the mainstream by avoiding the negative connotations (to suits) of the term “free software”. http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/O/open-source.html http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/O/open-source.html I looks like open source means more that just ability to read the code.
    - jmcqk6 2y ago
      There is no platonic definition for words that make it wrong to use them in a different way. Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. If someone uses a term like "open source" in a way that is clearly different from how you understand the word, that doesn't make them wrong. All it does it highlight a different perspective. You can attempt to tell them that they are wrong to use the term that way. It's changing the topic and distracts from the point, so if that's your goal, go for it. Most people don't react well to it. You can think that they should be okay with it, but people don't tend to react well to that either. it's your choice.

unethical_ban 2y ago

"Hey creator, it's important for open software to be properly licensed, otherwise there can be legal issues. <Insert link to open source license references>"

ajdude 2y ago

https://github.com/solcloud/Counter-Strike/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/solcloud/Counter-Strike/blob/master/LICEN...