Hacker News Reader

Comment by 2OEH8eoCRo0 | Hacker News Reader

That's what open source is. I have the application and I have the source code.

You're missing "and I can use the source".

Without that freedom, you really don't have the benefits of open source. This is commonly referred to as "source available".

Nope, that's 'source available'. Open source usually means a non-restrictive license, ala https://opensource.org/osd.

Why is the OSI definition considered canonical? I mean the OSI:

- didn’t invent the term open-source, they co-opted it from Christine Peterson who is not even a member of OSI

- was founded by secret charter members and is funded by closed-source tech giants like Google, Apple, and Microsoft who make billions exploiting open-source software while giving virtually nothing back in return

- is heavily influenced by these same corporate giants who steer decisions such as the definition of open-source for their personal profit above the needs of society

The inventor of the term "open source software” defined it as software which includes the freedom to view, modify, and distribute the software's source code. She made no mention of the ability to commercialize without compensation. Those terms were only added in the OSI’s Open Source Definition (OSD)

The inventor merely put a new name onto the existing free software terminology. By her own account she did not invent a new category of software but merely renamed it. As a result taking her words out of context is disingenuous because she and everyone else would assume all existing free software definitions still apply unless otherwise noted. Which is defined as:

> But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.

The freedom to charge for modified versions was always there.

Claiming that a single institution that is has open source in it’s name but benefits from having it’s primary source of revenue come from closed-source big tech software companies is very suspect.

These source-available licenses that limit one’s ability to commercialize are specifically designed to prevent big tech oligopolies from exploiting open source without payning, something they are notorious for doing.

Regardless, her original definition did not weigh in either way on the ability to commercialize, specifically to avoid a political battle.

As such the FUTO license is a valid open source license under the original definition, but not on the OZzi’s definition.

>> Why is the OSI definition considered canonical?

'The introduction of the term "open source software" was a deliberate effort to make this field of endeavor more understandable to newcomers and to business, which was viewed as necessary to its spread to a broader community of users. The problem with the main earlier label, "free software," was not its political connotations, but that—to newcomers—its seeming focus on price is distracting. A term was needed that focuses on the key issue of source code and that does not immediately confuse those new to the concept. The first term that came along at the right time and fulfilled these requirements was rapidly adopted: open source.'

Source: https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source...

This is from Christine Peterson's published account of how the term 'open source' came into popular usage.

The term 'open source' in popular usage as defined by the Open Source Definition (https://opensource.org/osd) has been in use for more than 25 years now.

Let FUTO keep their "source first" license and use it to forward their goals, but do not create confusion by trying to co-opt the well-known and broadly understood meaning of "open source".

In the abstract, I agree that having the OSI be the only one who can define open source is a little wonky. In practice, it turns out that everybody who makes this argument is doing it because they want to materially restrict what end users can do and are trying to pretend that their source-available software is "open source" for marketing reasons. Thankfully, it turns out that there are other groups making definitions that happen to dovetail into the exact same outcomes; I'm happy to consider definitions of Open Source from OSI, FSF, GNU, or DFSG ( https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses ).

The community was smaller back then, and the four freedoms were generally considered fundamental. That was absolutely the case with the founding of the OSI, which Peterson took active part in.

If Peterson has a different opinion, you should ask her and tell her own story. Making her the figurehead of your own crusade is not helpful.

Free or Libre Software is less confusing

Nope.

It restricts modifications one can do, and how to distribute it.

There is quite a stark difference between source available, and open source.

You can modify however you want, you just can't turn around and sell it.

No you can't. You're banned from removing their payment nag.

Why would you want to remove it? Do you reasonably see yourself digging into the code to remove that bit, rebuilding and reinstalling, compared to tapping "I have paid" once to dismiss (ideally after you actually have paid)?

You might think so, I might think so, but apparently there's some gatekeeping about the term dating back to its invention in the 20th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-so...

"This article may be confusing or unclear to readers."

Also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source - Richard Stallman argues the "obvious meaning" of term "open source" is that the source code is public/accessible for inspection, without necessarily any other rights granted

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_terms_for_free_sof... - In a 1998 strategy session in California, "open-source software" was selected by Todd Anderson, Larry Augustin, Jon Hall, Sam Ockman, Christine Peterson, and Eric S. Raymond. Richard Stallman had not been invited.

I'm getting downvoted now for dissenting. :D

I would also agree that the common sense definition of open source should be public/accessible code. But FOSS is a well-established movement and anyone involved with software development should be well-acquainted with Free vs Open.

So you mean the actual definition should not be the common sense one? That's probably pragmatic, yes.

Almost every word has some special meaning depending on the context it's used in. This is not controvercial. This is a silly argument to try to make a thing out of.

Jargon terms are necessary for specialists, it's true. Berry, for instance, technically includes tomatoes and cucumbers, but not strawberries or raspberries. So if somebody says "I just bought some berries" you should inspect their purchases and correct them accordingly, because maintaining correctness is important.

You’re being downvoted for:

1. Calling proper nomenclature “gatekeeping”.

2. Selectively quoting people to seem like they disagree, where in fact no such disagreement exists.

I wasn't sure about (2), I must admit, only that the history of the term is complicated. Stallman seems less attached to it than the others.

As far as I understand, Stallman is not supportive of promoting or using the term, but he does not disagree with the OSI’s definition.

But I quite often see trolls trying to claim that he does, since if the term is disputed, it opens up for what the trolls really want to do, which is always to illegitimately market their proprietary software (with abominable license terms) as “open source”.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com