undefined | Better HN

0 pointswyldfire2y ago0 comments

No. Both of these terms are well described by the relevant organizations [1][2]. And "source the happens to be public" or "leaked source" does not imply any particular license.

[1] https://opensource.org/

[2] https://www.fsf.org/

0 comments

antris2y ago

I mean, you're not saying that this project is "closed source" either, right?

So what is it if not "open source" on the scale between closed and open? "Half-open source"? "Leaked source" only refers to the way the source has initially began to be distributed, not whether it's open/closed right now.

mrob2y ago

The middle ground is "source available", although that usually means source made available by the copyright holder under terms that don't meet the Open Source/Free Software definitions. I think just "leaked source" is the best terminology here.

ZoomZoomZoom2y ago

Source Available is the worst of both, unless there's a way to reproducibly build the source and check the results against the shipped product. False sense of security and no legal ways to use the code.

antris2y ago

Ah, found it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software

I see, never heard of that term. Still wish there was a term that encompassed all software that has publically available source code. I thought "open source" was it. The literal meaning of the term aligns so beautifully with it.

dgellow2y ago

It’s more like someone illegally distributing a closed source program.

paulddraper2y ago

"Leaked source"

Like, you wouldn't call a pirated movie "free". I mean, it is, but only by violating copyright law.

antris2y ago

Of course I would call a pirated movie free, because that's what it is.

Free isn't a synonym for good or legal.

2 more replies

geon2y ago

This is definitely closed source. It is also leaked.

version_five2y ago

I feel like there is a consensus that open source is defined as you say. But there seems to be a vocal group, that I suspect are mostly just being pedantic about the literal definition of the two words separately that seem to keep coming up with alternate definitions. There was a long discussion about it on here the other day with tons of people "confusing" the availability of source code with open source.

amelius2y ago

Anyone can start an organisation and define "open source" the way they want.

The common way it is understood should probably be named "libre source" or something, because it means more than that the source is just out in the open.

seba_dos12y ago

Sure anyone can, but OSI is the organization that popularized the term in the first place and its definition is widely followed, so there's no need to make such point in this particular case.

scott_w2y ago

That’s no different to saying “You can define black as white.” That’s true but nobody is going to pay attention to you if you do.

amelius2y ago

The analogy falls flat because the words that make "open source" both already have meanings that make the OSI definition confusing to say the least.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

antris2y ago

I mean, you're not saying that this project is "closed source" either, right?

mrob2y ago

ZoomZoomZoom2y ago

antris2y ago

Ah, found it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software

dgellow2y ago

It’s more like someone illegally distributing a closed source program.

paulddraper2y ago

"Leaked source"

Like, you wouldn't call a pirated movie "free". I mean, it is, but only by violating copyright law.

antris2y ago

Of course I would call a pirated movie free, because that's what it is.

Free isn't a synonym for good or legal.

2 more replies

geon2y ago

This is definitely closed source. It is also leaked.

version_five2y ago

amelius2y ago

Anyone can start an organisation and define "open source" the way they want.

The common way it is understood should probably be named "libre source" or something, because it means more than that the source is just out in the open.

seba_dos12y ago

Sure anyone can, but OSI is the organization that popularized the term in the first place and its definition is widely followed, so there's no need to make such point in this particular case.

scott_w2y ago

That’s no different to saying “You can define black as white.” That’s true but nobody is going to pay attention to you if you do.

amelius2y ago

The analogy falls flat because the words that make "open source" both already have meanings that make the OSI definition confusing to say the least.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse