I don't really understand the definition of open source. I used to hear people say stuff along the lines of "If you just release the source and don't accept patches then that's not real open source"
But the opinion on that has changed I guess?
But the opinion on that has changed I guess?
If you can fork it, it's open source, even if contributions are not accepted upstream. If upstream accepts patches but does not allow forks, it's not open source.
It's about the license, not the project's governance model.
Open source = bazaar-style (highly-decentralized development)
Not open source = cathedral-style (highly-centralized development)
Free software = source code released under a license that grants rights such as freedom to modify, redistribute, own a copy of, etc. (see [1] for the proper definition)
Nonfree software = source code not released under such a license
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition
> Not open source = cathedral-style (highly-centralized development)
Don't conflate cathedral/bazaar to mean open-source/not-open-source. Wasn't the original example of cathedral the open source Emacs project?
Then some people wants to add some romance around it but that is just their own opinion.
I wanted to correct your statement without getting into an argument. I view an attempt to differentiate as a type of reaction.
Free as in freedom: You're free to do whatever you want with the code
Free as in beer: The product does not cost money
Whether or not they accept patches is up to the maintainer, and does not affect the freedom or open source nature of the software
this is commonly referred to as "source available".
TL;DR - development model != license
Google's V8 engine is essentially an example of this, though they do notionally have some framework for outside contributions (https://v8.dev/docs/contribute).
I completely agree that Mathematica needs a steady stream of income to continue, it is a great language and for many use cases the best available. But every time I see a paper that relied on Mathematica for critical conclusions I'm forced to dismiss it as incomplete speculation.