Open-Source Is Just That

78 点作者 OuterVale大约 1 个月前

21 条评论

olalonde大约 1 个月前

> When software is open-source, it is open-source, not necessarily free and open-source (FOSS), and even if it is FOSS, it might still have a restrictive licence. 2 The code being available in and of itself does not give you a right to take it, modify it, or redistribute it.Hmmm, if the license doesn't allow modification and redistribution, then it's not open source — it's "source-available." Open source, by definition, includes those rights. Just having access to the code isn't enough.

评论 #43608225 未加载

评论 #43608216 未加载

评论 #43608317 未加载

jchw大约 1 个月前

> When software is open-source, it is open-source, not necessarily free and open-source (FOSS), and even if it is FOSS, it might still have a restrictive licence.I strongly dislike this obviously controversial bit being snuck into an otherwise reasonable argument. The term FOSS is meant to unify "free software" and "open source software" and there is absolutely no reason to accept GNU's definition of "free software" and not OSI's arguably more successful definition of "open source" software. After all, "free" software, to this day, just sounds like freeware to the layperson, and meanwhile, there is other industry jargon you can use for when the source code is available but the copyright license doesn't meet these criteria.

评论 #43608413 未加载

评论 #43608467 未加载

评论 #43608634 未加载

nine_k大约 1 个月前

No, "Open Source" is not "just that". This word combination has a specific meaning, not equal to a simple sum of these words. Similarly, "sparkling water", "hot dog", or "heavy metal" have meanings distinct form the simple sum of the meanings of constituent words.The notion of "Open Source" has an agreed-upon definition, understood widely within the community of software development practice: <a href="https://opensource.org/osd" rel="nofollow">https://opensource.org/osd</a>By the same token, "Free Software" has a specific, narrow meaning: <a href="https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html</a>What would you tell a person who would peddle you deep-frozen apple juice as "hard cider", because it's technically cider, and is undeniably hard?(While at it: I must praise the choice of the font on the page, super clean and legible. It's Lexend, freely available from Google Fonts.)

评论 #43608754 未加载

评论 #43609086 未加载

schoen大约 1 个月前

The other points make sense to me, but I have to disagree with this one.> It does not mean it is free and open-source (FOSS).When the campaign to describe software as "open source" kicked off in 1998, it consciously choose the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) as the basis for the Open Source Definition (OSD), so that "open source" would refer to the same thing as "free software".Clearly the connotations of the two terms have diverged quite a lot, but their denotations weren't meant to.

评论 #43608286 未加载

评论 #43608193 未加载

评论 #43608268 未加载

评论 #43608279 未加载

robinhouston大约 1 个月前

This is a complaint as old as the internet, which probably bears repeating from time to time.One part I think is unnecessarily controversial:> It does not mean it is free and open-source (FOSS).This is another old argument that it's pointless to re-litigate, but one should at least note that this way of using the term ‘Open Source’ contradicts the OSI definition and risks causing avoidable misunderstandings.<a href="https://opensource.org/osd" rel="nofollow">https://opensource.org/osd</a>

评论 #43608101 未加载

bruce511大约 1 个月前

>> The code being available in and of itself does not give you a right to take it, modify it, or redistribute it.True, in the sense that some (not Open Source) things are distributed as source code. (I do so myself.)But the title of the article references Open Source. Capital O, capital S. If something ships under an Open Source (OSS not necessarily FOSS) then you fo have those rights.The bulk of the article is around support though, and I completely agree with the sentiments there.

Aeolun大约 1 个月前

I agree with everything except the concept of software whose source has been released not being free.If you put it, openly available, on the internet, that’s tantamount to giving it away for free, regardless of what bizarre license you release it under.Relying on restrictions in law is fundamentally a nasty proposition.

评论 #43608402 未加载

cocoto大约 1 个月前

As seen in the comments here, better to use a term like “source available”. It’s also more clear because the word “open” is way too abstract.

palata大约 1 个月前

I understand the complaint about entitled users: because it is open source does not mean that there is a community, support, reviews or anything. Open source just says something about the kind of licence and that's it.This said, the author doesn't seem to have a good understanding of the definition of "open source" in the context of software. It is about the licence, not about the fact that one can read the source. It's a common mistake, but it's a mistake nonetheless.To people who would say "well, if I want to understand "open source" as "source that is open", sure: you could also consider that a "hot dog" is a kind of dog. But don't be surprised when people tell you that they eat dogs ;-).

boyter大约 1 个月前

Ignoring the open-source vs free software discussions that are bound to come about from this well said. Large companies exploiting developers and abuse towards the maintainers is probably my biggest bugbear when it comes to this.In fact I have a similar post <a href="https://boyter.org/posts/the-three-f-s-of-open-source/" rel="nofollow">https://boyter.org/posts/the-three-f-s-of-open-source/</a> which I redirect people towards if they become aggressive towards me when I am trying to help them. Thankfully I have only had to use it a handful of times.

YetAnotherNick大约 1 个月前

I think that the examples are not something most users fight with maintainers about.- Does open source mean that the maintainers are free to ignore single line security fixes PR and refuse to handover it to well trusted and willing contributors.- Does open source mean that maintainers could plant crypto miner or malware in the project or sell to someone who might do that?- Does open source mean that companies could change the license and keep the product name same or remove a core functionality and migrate it to paid version?I have seen multiple instances of all of these.

评论 #43608114 未加载

sameerds大约 1 个月前

I am confused. Has the author (and most of the comments below) not heard of the "Open Source Definition", or is it not considered relevant anymore?<a href="https://opensource.org/osd" rel="nofollow">https://opensource.org/osd</a>

userbinator大约 1 个月前

I've always found the fixation on source code rather odd. Many people know how to fix or modify anything else they own without the original design documents. Why should software be any different?

评论 #43608240 未加载

评论 #43608252 未加载

CaptainFever大约 1 个月前

This is the whole reason why we should be using the term "free software" instead of "open source" [2].Free software is about user freedoms; the creator is unable to stop the user from redistributing or modifying the software. By using the term "open source", these freedoms end up getting ignored, until it simply gets diluted down to source availability, as seen in this article [1].Actually, this article goes one step further and even says that free software is not free software; that is, it can have a license that restricts fundamental user freedoms. This is obviously wrong.[1]From the article:> When software is open-source, it is open-source, not necessarily free and open-source (FOSS), and even if it is FOSS, it might still have a restrictive licence. The code being available in and of itself does not give you a right to take it, modify it, or redistribute it.[2]<a href="https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....</a>

评论 #43608347 未加载

评论 #43608188 未加载

评论 #43608295 未加载

psychoslave大约 1 个月前

I like to use FLOW for free libre open work.First, the name sound cool, who doesn't want to be in the flow, putting its stream of consciousness into some hikigai endeavor?It makes clear that there is something about liberty, rather than a focus on gratious in the monetary sense.It also bring on the table that there is some work at play. So human time and attention. The polysemie helps in the sense that it also stand for the result of the work, be it software, music or some graphic design.

mappu大约 1 个月前

The MIT license spells this out extremely clearly IN CAPITAL LETTERS. It's actually really refreshing to read.

umanwizard大约 1 个月前

Open-source and FOSS mean the same thing. Any software that’s not Free Software is not open source. The only difference between the two terms is in the philosophy/ideology of the people who use them, not in their actual denotative meaning.If you describe source-available proprietary software as “open source” you are using the term differently from practically everyone else, including the people who coined it.

评论 #43612370 未加载

jauntywundrkind大约 1 个月前

The vast vast majority of people believe Open Source includes free.This is nonsense & actively harmful posting. There are some good paragraphs about what you don't get, but up at top saying it doesn't have to be free is not correct.Open Source Definition: <a href="https://opensource.org/osd" rel="nofollow">https://opensource.org/osd</a>

KingMob大约 1 个月前

Yet another article purporting to "defend" open source while simultaneously undermining its communal aspects by implying maintainers owe NOTHING to others.Where's the vigorous criticism of CLAs? The criticism of monetization that leaves out unpaid volunteers? The acknowledgment of all the free labor provided by users, bug reporters, documenters, evangelists, etc.?This attitude is as toxic as the users' attitudes it's railing against, just on the opposite side of the fence.

bad_user大约 1 个月前

Eh, no, Open-Source means Open-Source and I hate it when people try overloading words due to market-appeal or ignorance.<a href="https://opensource.org/definition-annotated" rel="nofollow">https://opensource.org/definition-annotated</a>I agree partly with the article about entitlement, but you need to define what "open" means, and "access to source code" doesn't cut it due to IP laws. It can't be "open" if it's a legal landmine.And yes, Open-Source does mean "FOSS", always. The definitions of Open-Source and Free Software being very much equivalent.Stop overloading terms for your own gain.

评论 #43608077 未加载

评论 #43608337 未加载

评论 #43608087 未加载

samdung大约 1 个月前

Now i have an article i can refer people to who ask me for a deadline on OSS features they request. ;)