3 ms·

imo this is a hill people need to stop dying on. Open source means "I can see the source" to most of the world. Wishing it meant "very permissively licensed" to

by fastball 10mo ago

imo this is a hill people need to stop dying on. Open source means "I can see the source" to most of the world. Wishing it meant "very permissively licensed" to everyone is a lost cause. And honestly it wasn't a good hill to begin with: if what you are talking about is the license, call it "open license". The source code is out in the open, so it is "open source". This is why the purists have lost ground to practical usage.

whimsicalism 10mo ago
> Open source means "I can see the source" to most of the world well we don't really want to open that can of worms though, do we? I don't agree with ceding technical terms to the rest of the world. I'm increasingly told we need to stop calling cancer detection AI "AI" or "ML" because it is not the 'bad AI' and confuses people. I guess I'm okay with being intransigent.
- fastball 10mo ago
  If you are happy that time is being spent quibbling over definitions instead of actually focusing on the ideal, I'm not sure you care about the ideals as much as you say you do. Who gives a shit what we call "cancer AI", what matters is the result.
embedding-shape 10mo ago
> imo this is a hill people need to stop dying on. As someone who was born and raised on FOSS, and still mostly employed to work on FOSS, I disagree. Open source is what it is today because it's built by people with a spine who stand tall for their ideals even if it means less money, less industry recognition, lots of unglorious work and lots of other negatives. It's not purist to believe that what built open source so far should remain open source, and not wanting to dilute that ecosystem with things that aren't open source, yet call themselves open source.
- fastball 10mo ago
  You should stand up for your ideals, but dying on the hill of what you call your ideals is actually getting in the way of that. Because instead of making the point "this license isn't as permissive as it could/should be" (easy to understand), instead the point being made is "this isn't real open source", which comes across to most people as just some weird gate-keeping / No True Scotsman kinda thing.
  - whimsicalism 10mo ago
    no, “No True Scotsman” is just about people not categories like open source
    - fastball 10mo ago
      Good job missing the point. Though given the stance you are taking in this conversation, I'm not surprised you want to quibble over that. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
      - whimsicalism 10mo ago
        ultimately you have to imbue words with meaning, otherwise it is impossible to have a discussion. what i said about no true scotsman was false, i was just trying to prove a point.
        fastball 10mo ago
        What point were you proving?
  - JoshTriplett 10mo ago
    "No True Scotsman" is about specifically about changing the rules to exclude a new example you don't want to permit. The rules haven't changed, and the attempts to violate the requirements aren't new. Proprietary licenses continue to be proprietary. Open Source continues to not allow restrictions on commercial use.
jsnell 10mo ago
I don't think you get access to source in this case. The release is a binary blob.
JoshTriplett 10mo ago
And back in the day, people incorrectly called it "public domain". That was wrong too. > if what you are talking about is the license, call it "open license". If you want to build something proprietary, call it something else. "Open Source" is taken.

whimsicalism 10mo ago

> Open source means "I can see the source" to most of the world well we don't really want to open that can of worms though, do we? I don't agree with ceding technical terms to the rest of the world. I'm increasingly told we need to stop calling cancer detection AI "AI" or "ML" because it is not the 'bad AI' and confuses people. I guess I'm okay with being intransigent.

fastball 10mo ago
If you are happy that time is being spent quibbling over definitions instead of actually focusing on the ideal, I'm not sure you care about the ideals as much as you say you do. Who gives a shit what we call "cancer AI", what matters is the result.

embedding-shape 10mo ago

> imo this is a hill people need to stop dying on. As someone who was born and raised on FOSS, and still mostly employed to work on FOSS, I disagree. Open source is what it is today because it's built by people with a spine who stand tall for their ideals even if it means less money, less industry recognition, lots of unglorious work and lots of other negatives. It's not purist to believe that what built open source so far should remain open source, and not wanting to dilute that ecosystem with things that aren't open source, yet call themselves open source.

fastball 10mo ago
You should stand up for your ideals, but dying on the hill of what you call your ideals is actually getting in the way of that. Because instead of making the point "this license isn't as permissive as it could/should be" (easy to understand), instead the point being made is "this isn't real open source", which comes across to most people as just some weird gate-keeping / No True Scotsman kinda thing.
- whimsicalism 10mo ago
  no, “No True Scotsman” is just about people not categories like open source
  - fastball 10mo ago
    Good job missing the point. Though given the stance you are taking in this conversation, I'm not surprised you want to quibble over that. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    - whimsicalism 10mo ago
      ultimately you have to imbue words with meaning, otherwise it is impossible to have a discussion. what i said about no true scotsman was false, i was just trying to prove a point.
      - fastball 10mo ago
        What point were you proving?
- JoshTriplett 10mo ago
  "No True Scotsman" is about specifically about changing the rules to exclude a new example you don't want to permit. The rules haven't changed, and the attempts to violate the requirements aren't new. Proprietary licenses continue to be proprietary. Open Source continues to not allow restrictions on commercial use.

jsnell 10mo ago

I don't think you get access to source in this case. The release is a binary blob.

JoshTriplett 10mo ago

And back in the day, people incorrectly called it "public domain". That was wrong too. > if what you are talking about is the license, call it "open license". If you want to build something proprietary, call it something else. "Open Source" is taken.