4 ms·

Anyone that wants to "call you out" for making source code available, for free, to what was a closed-source application is petty at best. I get the pedantic na

Anyone that wants to "call you out" for making source code available, for free, to what was a closed-source application is petty at best. I get the pedantic nature of calling it "open source," but the idea that OP has to not only make the source available, but also allow others to resell it in order to be a good citizen in the OS community is disappointing to me. Your point is well taken, I just find it unfortunate that people think this way.

mindcrime 12y ago
but the idea that OP has to not only make the source available, but also allow others to resell it in order to be a good citizen in the OS community is disappointing to me. Why? The "freedom to redistribute" stuff has been part of the essence of the "open source" movement about as long as it's had a name, and is also part of the fundamentals of the "free software" ideology as well. Making "source available but you can't resell / redistribute" has pretty much always been seen as occupying a weird "not quite completely commercial, not quite open source" space. I think most people use the term "shared source" for that. Of course, doing "shared source" instead of "open source" doesn't make someone a bad person or anything. But I think it's important to be accurate in how we refer to things, as this distinction really does matter.
rakoo 12y ago
There is a huge difference between an "open source" code and an "available" code. The whole point of open source is that you can reuse, modify and redistribute the modification on the code, so that the community's knowledge in the domain can be globally increased. It's all about improving the way we work as a community. Now, of course, I am free to not want anyone to reuse my code, even if it's publically available. That is just not Open Source. To be clear on the "calling you out", it's not about calling you out because you made your code available only instead of full OSS, it's about calling you out because you made your code available only and you pretended it's OSS. That is just a lie and calling you out on this is perfectly justifiable.

mindcrime 12y ago

but the idea that OP has to not only make the source available, but also allow others to resell it in order to be a good citizen in the OS community is disappointing to me. Why? The "freedom to redistribute" stuff has been part of the essence of the "open source" movement about as long as it's had a name, and is also part of the fundamentals of the "free software" ideology as well. Making "source available but you can't resell / redistribute" has pretty much always been seen as occupying a weird "not quite completely commercial, not quite open source" space. I think most people use the term "shared source" for that. Of course, doing "shared source" instead of "open source" doesn't make someone a bad person or anything. But I think it's important to be accurate in how we refer to things, as this distinction really does matter.

rakoo 12y ago

There is a huge difference between an "open source" code and an "available" code. The whole point of open source is that you can reuse, modify and redistribute the modification on the code, so that the community's knowledge in the domain can be globally increased. It's all about improving the way we work as a community. Now, of course, I am free to not want anyone to reuse my code, even if it's publically available. That is just not Open Source. To be clear on the "calling you out", it's not about calling you out because you made your code available only instead of full OSS, it's about calling you out because you made your code available only and you pretended it's OSS. That is just a lie and calling you out on this is perfectly justifiable.