4 ms·

I feel like we need more awareness on what is open-source and how does it work. This is NOT open source. This is, at best, source available but as there is no w

I feel like we need more awareness on what is open-source and how does it work. This is NOT open source. This is, at best, source available but as there is no way to confirm that this code even runs anywhere ever it's entirely a bad faith performance to trick people, deceive regulators and stain the entire open source movement. I sincerely hope that the main stream media does not fall for this and calls it out. It's not rocket science. It's really really simple - this is not good for anyone.

YetAnotherNick 9mo ago
Which part of open source mentions that it is NOT open source if the code is not run.
- notsure2 9mo ago
  The claim is THIS is the SOURCE that is being opened. The claim can not be verified. If it's not running then this isn't the SOURCE. If I "Open Source" windows 11 but lie and put some other junk there then I can't CLAIM to have open sourced windows 11 now can I?
  - nailer 9mo ago
    That’s not part of the open source definition. You can claim the open source code isn’t Windows 11, but you can’t complain the code isn’t open source.
    - antisol 9mo ago
      > you can’t complain the code isn’t open source (unless, of course, the code isn't licensed under an OSI-approved license. Parent didn't actually specify which license the hypothetical not-windows-11 was being "open sourced" under, so we can't actually say for sure whether this hypothetical release is open source or not) </pedantry>
      - YetAnotherNick 9mo ago
        > I feel like we need more awareness on what is open-source and how does it work. This is NOT open source.
        deleted 9mo ago
        [deleted]
      - nailer 9mo ago
        Yes that’s correct. I’m imagining it’s the Apache license like the X code, which is indeed an open source license.
sublinear 9mo ago
> there is no way to confirm that this code even runs anywhere ever I'm confused what this has to do with "open source" or how it affects public perception. I agree with you that it's totally possible to lie about what is actually running in production and that sharing some code doesn't mean it's that code, but how is this a new problem?
kouteiheika 9mo ago
> This is NOT open source. So in the end are we going by the OSI's definition of Open Source, or not? Can we make up our mind please? Every time anyone posts here even a slightly modified Open Source license (e.g. a MIT license with an extra restriction that prevents megacorporations from using it but doesn't affect anyone else) people come out of the woodwork with their pitchforks screaming "this is not Open Source!", and insist that the Open Source Definition decides what is Open Source or not, and not to call anything which doesn't meet that definition "Open Source". And yet here we are with a repository licensed under an actually Open Source license, and suddenly this is the most upvoted comment, and now people don't actually care about the Open Source Definition after all? Either we go by the OSI's definition, in which case this is open source, regardless of what you think the motivations are for opening up this code, or we go by the "vibes" of whether it feels open source, in which case a modified MIT license which prohibits companies with a trillion+ market cap from using it is also open source.
- therealpygon 9mo ago
  You’re discussing licenses, their concern is about calling a thing that cannot function without the associated proprietary back-end “open source” for marketing. If you want to make the argument only about the license, then you should make sure you are consistent by referencing “open source license” every single time instead. Their point is that companies use releases like this to claim they “open source” simply by releasing some useless code under an open source license. I think if you simply replace “license” with the word “software” in those same OSI tenants, you’ll suddenly find that this “open source” project doesn’t come close to being the “open source” most people believe in. They don’t just expect the definition to stop with the license if you’re going to call something “open source” instead of “has an open source license”. OSI only provides a definition of “Open Source” with respect to licenses. So while you may consider only a singular definition by an American organization, founded by corporations, designed to focus on clarifying and promoting the licensing aspect of open source, as the end-all be-all all-encompassing definition for the words “open source”, others argue that there are more things in software than just a license and they hope the media won’t be fooled into reporting about X offering “open source” access.
nailer 9mo ago
This is open source. The license is the Apache license that meets the open source definition: https://github.com/xai-org/x-algorithm/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/xai-org/x-algorithm/blob/main/LICENSE
- krautsauer 9mo ago
  By license sure, it is. But having a look at https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en#four-freedoms https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en#four-freedoms I kind of doubt it really is. Freedom 1 is dubiously fulfilled. I can modify it, sure, but I can't modify it when the program runs on my data for me. Freedom 0 isn't fulfilled. I don't have the necessary input data to run the program myself. (Of course the free software definition wasn't written for today's world, and the clarification below goes somewhat against my argument for Freedom 0. Feel free to pick this apart.)
  - nailer 9mo ago
    That's a fair point, but I don't think anyone was stating it's free software. It doesn't need to meet the four freedoms to be open source, just the open source definition.
oakwhiz 9mo ago
This is open source. You're thinking of trusted execution, audits, licenses with disclosure requirements, or signed affidavits which is a totally different thing than open source. Otherwise you could claim that just about anything isn't open source just because you're not sure what is happening on someone else's computer.
- wraptile 9mo ago
  ok. This is open source of _what_? Without tying the code to a real life object the intent is absolutely meaningless. Here's the open source code for hackernews: ``` @route("/"): def main(): return "hello world" ``` What does that give us? We can't run this to host our own hackernews as it's clearly not runnable. We can't really learn anything from this as it doesn't not represent any real reality. Maybe it's a fun reading exercise but that's about it. Open source means that I can take source and run it to ensure it's trusted. Ascii characters being visible on my screen is just a nice byproduct of this goal.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]

YetAnotherNick 9mo ago

Which part of open source mentions that it is NOT open source if the code is not run.

notsure2 9mo ago
The claim is THIS is the SOURCE that is being opened. The claim can not be verified. If it's not running then this isn't the SOURCE. If I "Open Source" windows 11 but lie and put some other junk there then I can't CLAIM to have open sourced windows 11 now can I?
- nailer 9mo ago
  That’s not part of the open source definition. You can claim the open source code isn’t Windows 11, but you can’t complain the code isn’t open source.
  - antisol 9mo ago
    > you can’t complain the code isn’t open source (unless, of course, the code isn't licensed under an OSI-approved license. Parent didn't actually specify which license the hypothetical not-windows-11 was being "open sourced" under, so we can't actually say for sure whether this hypothetical release is open source or not) </pedantry>
    - YetAnotherNick 9mo ago
      > I feel like we need more awareness on what is open-source and how does it work. This is NOT open source.
      - deleted 9mo ago
        [deleted]
    - nailer 9mo ago
      Yes that’s correct. I’m imagining it’s the Apache license like the X code, which is indeed an open source license.

sublinear 9mo ago

> there is no way to confirm that this code even runs anywhere ever I'm confused what this has to do with "open source" or how it affects public perception. I agree with you that it's totally possible to lie about what is actually running in production and that sharing some code doesn't mean it's that code, but how is this a new problem?

kouteiheika 9mo ago

> This is NOT open source. So in the end are we going by the OSI's definition of Open Source, or not? Can we make up our mind please? Every time anyone posts here even a slightly modified Open Source license (e.g. a MIT license with an extra restriction that prevents megacorporations from using it but doesn't affect anyone else) people come out of the woodwork with their pitchforks screaming "this is not Open Source!", and insist that the Open Source Definition decides what is Open Source or not, and not to call anything which doesn't meet that definition "Open Source". And yet here we are with a repository licensed under an actually Open Source license, and suddenly this is the most upvoted comment, and now people don't actually care about the Open Source Definition after all? Either we go by the OSI's definition, in which case this is open source, regardless of what you think the motivations are for opening up this code, or we go by the "vibes" of whether it feels open source, in which case a modified MIT license which prohibits companies with a trillion+ market cap from using it is also open source.

therealpygon 9mo ago
You’re discussing licenses, their concern is about calling a thing that cannot function without the associated proprietary back-end “open source” for marketing. If you want to make the argument only about the license, then you should make sure you are consistent by referencing “open source license” every single time instead. Their point is that companies use releases like this to claim they “open source” simply by releasing some useless code under an open source license. I think if you simply replace “license” with the word “software” in those same OSI tenants, you’ll suddenly find that this “open source” project doesn’t come close to being the “open source” most people believe in. They don’t just expect the definition to stop with the license if you’re going to call something “open source” instead of “has an open source license”. OSI only provides a definition of “Open Source” with respect to licenses. So while you may consider only a singular definition by an American organization, founded by corporations, designed to focus on clarifying and promoting the licensing aspect of open source, as the end-all be-all all-encompassing definition for the words “open source”, others argue that there are more things in software than just a license and they hope the media won’t be fooled into reporting about X offering “open source” access.

nailer 9mo ago

This is open source. The license is the Apache license that meets the open source definition: https://github.com/xai-org/x-algorithm/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/xai-org/x-algorithm/blob/main/LICENSE

krautsauer 9mo ago
By license sure, it is. But having a look at https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en#four-freedoms https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en#four-freedoms I kind of doubt it really is. Freedom 1 is dubiously fulfilled. I can modify it, sure, but I can't modify it when the program runs on my data for me. Freedom 0 isn't fulfilled. I don't have the necessary input data to run the program myself. (Of course the free software definition wasn't written for today's world, and the clarification below goes somewhat against my argument for Freedom 0. Feel free to pick this apart.)
- nailer 9mo ago
  That's a fair point, but I don't think anyone was stating it's free software. It doesn't need to meet the four freedoms to be open source, just the open source definition.

oakwhiz 9mo ago

This is open source. You're thinking of trusted execution, audits, licenses with disclosure requirements, or signed affidavits which is a totally different thing than open source. Otherwise you could claim that just about anything isn't open source just because you're not sure what is happening on someone else's computer.

wraptile 9mo ago
ok. This is open source of _what_? Without tying the code to a real life object the intent is absolutely meaningless. Here's the open source code for hackernews: ``` @route("/"): def main(): return "hello world" ``` What does that give us? We can't run this to host our own hackernews as it's clearly not runnable. We can't really learn anything from this as it doesn't not represent any real reality. Maybe it's a fun reading exercise but that's about it. Open source means that I can take source and run it to ensure it's trusted. Ascii characters being visible on my screen is just a nice byproduct of this goal.

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]