3 ms·

It's not a "misconception". Open source implying open contributions is a very common stance, if not even the mainstream stance. Source availability is for bette

It's not a "misconception". Open source implying open contributions is a very common stance, if not even the mainstream stance. Source availability is for better or for worse just one aspect of open source.

echoangle 2y ago
It is a misconception. Open source doesn’t mean the maintainer needs to interact with you. It just means you can access the code and do your own fork with whatever features you like.
xigoi 2y ago
Would you say that SQLite is not open source?
- perching_aix 2y ago
  Yes. I'd call it source available instead. Although it does have some hallmarks of open source, such as its funding.
  - steveklabnik 2y ago
    Source available is already a well understood term that does not mean this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software
    - perching_aix 2y ago
      Reading the preamble there, and the parapgraph after that, I find what I said to be consistent what the page is saying there.
      - steveklabnik 2y ago
        > Any software is source-available in the broad sense as long as its source code is distributed along with it, even if the user has no legal rights to use, share, modify or even compile it. You have the legal right to use, share, modify, and compile, SQlite's source. If it were Source Available, you'd have the right to look at it, but do none of those things.
        perching_aix 2y ago
        But not necessarily any of the other things! Big difference. Please read it again.
        steveklabnik 2y ago
        That's your assertion, I am saying that it is not correct in the general way that people understand the terms "open source" and "source available." I doubt we're going to come to an agreement here, though, so I'll leave it at that.
        johnisgood 2y ago
        > even if the user has no legal rights to use, share, modify or even compile it. Emphasis on even. It can have such rights, or not, the term may still apply regardless.
worthless-trash 2y ago
Open Source definition ( https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd ) says nothing about community involvement or accepting contributions. It may be common, but it is not necessary, required or even hinted at in the license. Open source is not a philosophy, it is a license.
- perching_aix 2y ago
  For many it is very much a philosophy, a principle, and politics. The OSI is not the sole arbiter of what open source is, and while their definition is somewhat commonly referred to, it is not the be all end all.
  - worthless-trash 2y ago
    Sovereign citizens believe they dont need to adhere to the law, individual belief sadly doesn't override reality.
    - perching_aix 2y ago
      I could say the same about the practical reality of open contributions being extremely heavily interwoven with open source. We're debating made up stuff here. The reality is all in our collective heads.

echoangle 2y ago

It is a misconception. Open source doesn’t mean the maintainer needs to interact with you. It just means you can access the code and do your own fork with whatever features you like.

xigoi 2y ago

Would you say that SQLite is not open source?

perching_aix 2y ago
Yes. I'd call it source available instead. Although it does have some hallmarks of open source, such as its funding.
- steveklabnik 2y ago
  Source available is already a well understood term that does not mean this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software
  - perching_aix 2y ago
    Reading the preamble there, and the parapgraph after that, I find what I said to be consistent what the page is saying there.
    - steveklabnik 2y ago
      > Any software is source-available in the broad sense as long as its source code is distributed along with it, even if the user has no legal rights to use, share, modify or even compile it. You have the legal right to use, share, modify, and compile, SQlite's source. If it were Source Available, you'd have the right to look at it, but do none of those things.
      - perching_aix 2y ago
        But not necessarily any of the other things! Big difference. Please read it again.
        steveklabnik 2y ago
        That's your assertion, I am saying that it is not correct in the general way that people understand the terms "open source" and "source available." I doubt we're going to come to an agreement here, though, so I'll leave it at that.
        johnisgood 2y ago
        > even if the user has no legal rights to use, share, modify or even compile it. Emphasis on even. It can have such rights, or not, the term may still apply regardless.

worthless-trash 2y ago

Open Source definition ( https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd ) says nothing about community involvement or accepting contributions. It may be common, but it is not necessary, required or even hinted at in the license. Open source is not a philosophy, it is a license.

perching_aix 2y ago
For many it is very much a philosophy, a principle, and politics. The OSI is not the sole arbiter of what open source is, and while their definition is somewhat commonly referred to, it is not the be all end all.
- worthless-trash 2y ago
  Sovereign citizens believe they dont need to adhere to the law, individual belief sadly doesn't override reality.
  - perching_aix 2y ago
    I could say the same about the practical reality of open contributions being extremely heavily interwoven with open source. We're debating made up stuff here. The reality is all in our collective heads.