undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdiggan1y ago0 comments

For the EU, I'm guessing you're talking about the EUPL, which is FSF/OSI approved and GPL compatible, generally considered copyleft.

For the CH Open, I'm not finding anything specific, even from Swiss websites, could you help me understand what you're referring to here?

I'm guessing that all these definitions have at least some points in common, which involves (another guess) at least being able to produce the output artifacts/binaries by yourself, something that you cannot do with Llama, just as an example.

0 comments

JumpCrisscross1y ago

> For the CH Open, I'm not finding anything specific, even from Swiss websites, could you help me understand what you're referring to here

Was on the HN front page earlier [1][2]. The definition comes strikingly close to source on request with no use restrictions.

> all these definitions have at least some points in common

Agreed. But they're all different. There isn't an accepted defintiion of open source even when it comes to software; there is an accepted set of broad principles.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41047172

[2] https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/open-source-observato...

digganOP1y ago

> Agreed. But they're all different. There isn't an accepted defintiion of open source even when it comes to software; there is an accepted set of broad principles.

Agreed, but are we splitting hairs here and is it relevant to the claim made earlier?

> (The way open source software, today, generally means source available, not FOSS.)

Do any of these principles or definitions from these orgs agree/disagree with that?

My hypothesis is that they generally would go against that belief and instead argue that open source is different from source available. But I haven't looked specifically to confirm if that's true or not, just a guess.

JumpCrisscross1y ago

> are we splitting hairs here and is it relevant to the claim made earlier?

I don't think so. Take the Swiss definition. Source on request, not even available. Yet being branded and accepted as open source.

(To be clear, the Swiss example favours FOSS. But it also permits source on request and bundles them together under the same label.)

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

JumpCrisscross1y ago

> For the CH Open, I'm not finding anything specific, even from Swiss websites, could you help me understand what you're referring to here

Was on the HN front page earlier [1][2]. The definition comes strikingly close to source on request with no use restrictions.

> all these definitions have at least some points in common

Agreed. But they're all different. There isn't an accepted defintiion of open source even when it comes to software; there is an accepted set of broad principles.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41047172

[2] https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/open-source-observato...

digganOP1y ago

> Agreed. But they're all different. There isn't an accepted defintiion of open source even when it comes to software; there is an accepted set of broad principles.

Agreed, but are we splitting hairs here and is it relevant to the claim made earlier?

> (The way open source software, today, generally means source available, not FOSS.)

Do any of these principles or definitions from these orgs agree/disagree with that?

JumpCrisscross1y ago

> are we splitting hairs here and is it relevant to the claim made earlier?

I don't think so. Take the Swiss definition. Source on request, not even available. Yet being branded and accepted as open source.

(To be clear, the Swiss example favours FOSS. But it also permits source on request and bundles them together under the same label.)

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse