Hacker News Reader

Comment by antris | Hacker News Reader

Well that's the difference between "open source" and "free software", no? "Open source", meaning that anyone can see/copy the source code, and "free software" meaning code that is licensed accordingly.

I always thought that "open source" has nothing to do with what's legal and what isn't, it just means that anyone can materially access the code.

View on HN

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/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

"Leaked source"

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

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

Free isn't a synonym for good or legal.

“Free” is related to the concept of property, which is a legal concept.

If something is “free” that means that you can get it legally without paying.

If something is only “free” by circumventing law, then that’s theft.

Anything at the store is free too, you just have to avoid paying.

This is definitely closed source. It is also leaked.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That’s not how human languages work at all. A term picks up common or agreed use. When you try to push against that, you see the exact reaction you’re observing here.

no, that would be something like "source available" or "source visible". both open source and free software imply specific licenses, though they are not synonymous

Reply on news.ycombinator.com