5 ms·

Just to add a different perspective: sometimes people mean Open Source[1] when they say "open source," and sometimes they don't. Personally, I take the cathedr

Just to add a different perspective: sometimes people mean Open Source[1] when they say "open source," and sometimes they don't. Personally, I take the cathedral/bazaar distinction to indicate different development cadences and philosophies, rather than whether contributions are allowed/encouraged. Various cathedral-style projects (eg: FreeBSD, Emacs) still actively take contributions and encourage involvement. There's something even further along the spectrum that's "we provide dumps of source code, but don't really want your patches." I'm not sure what the best term is for that, but "source [merely] available" sometimes has that connotation. [1] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd

kccqzy 2y ago
The quintessential example for providing source and discouraging contributions is SQLite. Nobody would argue that it's merely source available. It is full open source. In fact "source available" usually means you can see the source code, but there are severe restrictions on the source, such as no permission to modify the source even for your own use, or no permission to create forks of the project containing the modifications, or severe restrictions on such modifications. An example is MongoDB's Server Side Public License, which is source-available but not open source.
- steve_gh 2y ago
  I think it depends on the contribution. I sent a bug report with a minimal test case. It was welcomed and quickly fixed. It is not a source code contribution, but I think it is a contribution.
  - odo1242 2y ago
    OP is specifically talking about code contributions. You can (I have) make that type of contribution to proprietary software.
palata 2y ago
> sometimes people mean Open Source[1] when they say "open source," and sometimes they don't. And when they don't when talking about source code, they are wrong. If someone says that an RJ45 cable is "a piece of software" because it's "soft" (you can bend it), would you say it's just a different perspective? Open source, in the context of software, has a particular meaning. And it is the case that many software developers don't know it, so it's worth teaching them.
- interroboink 2y ago
  While I, too, believe that words should mean things, I don't think it's quite so cut-and-dry in this particular case. Part of the reason the term could not be trademarked was because it is too descriptive; it's easy for people to put those words together to describe software. I agree that the OSI meaning is worth teaching. But perhaps not by saying "you're wrong; there is only one right way." Perhaps more like "some people attach XYZ specific meaning to that phrase, please be aware of it. Also, here is some history of the term if you like." ---- Aside: On re-reading this, I wonder if it comes across as testy... I think I am just channeling my annoyance with the language police of the world, in general, who sour people's interest in topics with their gatekeeping behavior. I don't mean it too personally towards you (:
  - palata 2y ago
    To take a step back, it came from this comment: > One could ask whether Google works ‘open source’ or more ‘source available’; the source is there but you cannot contribute, if you can build it at all The author of this comment says "if you can't contribute, shouldn't you consider it `source available` instead of `open source`?". There is only one valid answer: "No, you should not. It is still open source even if you cannot contribute". The context is clear, we are talking about "open source" vs "source available", which are both very specific in this context. > I think I am just channeling my annoyance with the language police of the world, in general, who sour people's interest in topics with their gatekeeping behavior. I don't mean it too personally towards you (: No offense taken, and I don't mean it personally either =). My point is just that in this context, the author of the comment was pretty clearly talking (asking, even?) about the difference between "open source" and "source available". I don't even think it's shutting down the author: there was no other point than this, so the "thread" started by this author was purely about the meaning of those words.

kccqzy 2y ago

The quintessential example for providing source and discouraging contributions is SQLite. Nobody would argue that it's merely source available. It is full open source. In fact "source available" usually means you can see the source code, but there are severe restrictions on the source, such as no permission to modify the source even for your own use, or no permission to create forks of the project containing the modifications, or severe restrictions on such modifications. An example is MongoDB's Server Side Public License, which is source-available but not open source.

steve_gh 2y ago
I think it depends on the contribution. I sent a bug report with a minimal test case. It was welcomed and quickly fixed. It is not a source code contribution, but I think it is a contribution.
- odo1242 2y ago
  OP is specifically talking about code contributions. You can (I have) make that type of contribution to proprietary software.

palata 2y ago

> sometimes people mean Open Source[1] when they say "open source," and sometimes they don't. And when they don't when talking about source code, they are wrong. If someone says that an RJ45 cable is "a piece of software" because it's "soft" (you can bend it), would you say it's just a different perspective? Open source, in the context of software, has a particular meaning. And it is the case that many software developers don't know it, so it's worth teaching them.

interroboink 2y ago
While I, too, believe that words should mean things, I don't think it's quite so cut-and-dry in this particular case. Part of the reason the term could not be trademarked was because it is too descriptive; it's easy for people to put those words together to describe software. I agree that the OSI meaning is worth teaching. But perhaps not by saying "you're wrong; there is only one right way." Perhaps more like "some people attach XYZ specific meaning to that phrase, please be aware of it. Also, here is some history of the term if you like." ---- Aside: On re-reading this, I wonder if it comes across as testy... I think I am just channeling my annoyance with the language police of the world, in general, who sour people's interest in topics with their gatekeeping behavior. I don't mean it too personally towards you (:
- palata 2y ago
  To take a step back, it came from this comment: > One could ask whether Google works ‘open source’ or more ‘source available’; the source is there but you cannot contribute, if you can build it at all The author of this comment says "if you can't contribute, shouldn't you consider it `source available` instead of `open source`?". There is only one valid answer: "No, you should not. It is still open source even if you cannot contribute". The context is clear, we are talking about "open source" vs "source available", which are both very specific in this context. > I think I am just channeling my annoyance with the language police of the world, in general, who sour people's interest in topics with their gatekeeping behavior. I don't mean it too personally towards you (: No offense taken, and I don't mean it personally either =). My point is just that in this context, the author of the comment was pretty clearly talking (asking, even?) about the difference between "open source" and "source available". I don't even think it's shutting down the author: there was no other point than this, so the "thread" started by this author was purely about the meaning of those words.