undefined | Better HN

0 pointsGalanwe2y ago0 comments

Why?

"Open source" has a clear meaning: the source code is open.

It does not imply that the source is free to see, free to modify or free to fork.

I'm pro open source, but I also have no problem that said source is not copyable, redistributable, etc.

To me open source is about _knowledge_ of how something is done. Period.

0 comments

There's a pretty good Open Source definition that's over 20 years old: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition

"Business Source License" is not Open Source. You don't have to release your software as Open Source if you don't want to, I certainly write a lot of non-open-source software for a living. But people/companies want to take advantage of the good-will/reputation that comes from calling their software Open Source, and associating it with really Open Source software, without really making it Open Source. That's sleazy.

GalanweOP2y ago

It does definitely count as open source.

I don't care what a California-based "Open Source Initiative" group try to define as "Open Source Definition". That is all lobbying to me.

If I can see the source, then it's open source. The rest is just play on words which only purpose is to entertain sterile debates of zealot groups attempting vocabulary appropriation in a power struggle.

I don't want to fuel these groups' debates around "free software" vs "open source", Linux vs GNU/Linux or whatnot.

ploxiln2y ago

that's called "Source Available", it's also been a thing for 20+ years (but the limitations are pretty annoying so most people aren't into it)

1 more reply

CrLf2y ago

The word "open" has pretty broad implications and only one of those implications is "visible". It's pretty reasonable to expect more from "open source" than just the source being visible.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsGalanwe2y ago0 comments

Why?

"Open source" has a clear meaning: the source code is open.

It does not imply that the source is free to see, free to modify or free to fork.

I'm pro open source, but I also have no problem that said source is not copyable, redistributable, etc.

To me open source is about _knowledge_ of how something is done. Period.

0 comments

ploxiln2y ago

There's a pretty good Open Source definition that's over 20 years old: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition

GalanweOP2y ago

It does definitely count as open source.

I don't care what a California-based "Open Source Initiative" group try to define as "Open Source Definition". That is all lobbying to me.

I don't want to fuel these groups' debates around "free software" vs "open source", Linux vs GNU/Linux or whatnot.

ploxiln2y ago

that's called "Source Available", it's also been a thing for 20+ years (but the limitations are pretty annoying so most people aren't into it)

1 more reply

CrLf2y ago

The word "open" has pretty broad implications and only one of those implications is "visible". It's pretty reasonable to expect more from "open source" than just the source being visible.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse