4 ms·
The other points make sense to me, but I have to disagree with this one. > It does not mean it is free and open-source (FOSS). When the campaign to describe s
by schoen 2y ago
The other points make sense to me, but I have to disagree with this one.
> It does not mean it is free and open-source (FOSS).
When the campaign to describe software as "open source" kicked off in 1998, it consciously choose the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) as the basis for the Open Source Definition (OSD), so that "open source" would refer to the same thing as "free software".
Clearly the connotations of the two terms have diverged quite a lot, but their denotations weren't meant to.
- ekianjo 2y agoThat's exactly what happens when you muddy the waters by using an ambiguous term like "open source". People not understanding the original motive.
- mvdtnz 2y ago1998 was 27 years ago. Definitions change.
- School-Cotton 2y agoDefinitions do change, but this one hasn’t. 99% of people I see using the term “open source” in the present day are using it to mean software that you can freely modify and redistribute. For proprietary software with publicly readable source code, the term “source available” is used instead.
- mvdtnz 2y agoWhere are you getting that 99% from?
- School-Cotton 2y agoPersonal experience? I have never seen any notable case of a software project describing itself as “open source” that wasn’t also free software. Companies that want to publish their source code but not give you the right to use it however you want, e.g. Cockroach or (my former employer) Materialize, are described as “source-available” instead.
- bmacho 2y agoMy personal experience is 100%-0%. I've yet to see a project that uses "open source" as a synonym for FOSS or OSI. There are a lot of projects out there that use "open source" meaning "open source". HN comment section is always in outrage.
- School-Cotton 2y agoShare some examples?
- bmacho 2y ago[flagged]
- djur 2y agoWhat popular source-available, non-OSD software is commonly referred to as "open source"?
- greyface- 2y agoSQLite
- djur 2y agoWhich elements of the Open Source Definition does SQLite fail to meet?
- greyface- 2y agoThe prohibition on using it for evil[1] violates guidelines #5 and #6. And more generally, OSI argues[2] that "public domain" != "open source". [1]: https://github.com/sqlite/sqlite/blob/master/LICENSE.md https://github.com/sqlite/sqlite/blob/master/LICENSE.md [2]: https://opensource.org/blog/public-domain-is-not-open-source https://opensource.org/blog/public-domain-is-not-open-source
- xorcist 2y agoBoth of these sources contradict your somewhat bizarre thesis that sqlite, one of the most commonly used free software in the world, somehow is not open source.
- greyface- 2y agoI think you misunderstand my thesis. SQLite is open source, despite the fact that it fails to meet OSI's somewhat bizarre definition of "open source".
- AceJohnny2 2y agowhat does "Free" mean? What do you think the author meant in this context? The problem is that "Free" means two things in English, which is why some like to use the French/Spanish "Libre" instead, to separate the "free-as-in-speech" from "free-as-in-beer".
- deaddodo 2y agoI haven't seen a person in this thread use free in the sense of payment yet, it seems pretty disambiguous that everyone is referring to free in the sense of liberty. This includes the point the person you are responding to is trying to make, in which case they are noting that open source and source available are not the same things. Their point seems to be that open source, by the very definition to most who matter/care about the concept, implies the "free/libre/disentangled" portion. Whether that means derivative continuation (GPL and its kin) or not (MIT, BSD, etc). This is why the phrase "source available" exists.
- globular-toast 2y agoI don't think the author knows what Free Software is, sadly.