Hacker News Reader

Comment by huhtenberg | Hacker News Reader

By the same (linguistic) logic, "open source" should really refer to cases when the source is accessible, because it is just that - the opposite of "closed", and "libre source" to the cases when there are additional freedoms of use allowed. Alas, that ship has sailed.

That said, "fair source" is a very confusing term. Not really much better.

View on HN

There needs to be a way to prevent AWS from taking your code, setting up a competing business, taking the entire market, and leaving you with nothing.

Existing open source licenses leave you vulnerable to this.

"Source available" / "fair source" is one nice solution, but the open source purists hate it.

Another solution would be an even more viral open source license. Require that any users of your code make their entire company codebase also open source under the same licensing terms.

If the AGPL is "viral", we need a "pandemic": "Use this code and all of your company code, company docs and memos, manufacturing instructions, etc. must also be open and publicly available. Or contact us about an enterprise licensing fee."

This pretty much sums up the main point of contention on the term "open source", yeah.

Open-source just means you can see the source, as opposed to closed-source, which means you can't see the the source.

The visibility of the source has no bearing if the source can be used, modified, distributed, or if the application is gratuitous or not.

>> Open-source just means you can see the source

No. "Open Source" has a precise definition that includes terms of use:

https://opensource.org/osd

> Open-source just means you can see the source

This is false.

Or do you mean in the specific context of the new usage of the term by AI companies, which totally contradicts the original usage?

OK, and I say it's true. Now what?

Actually I think the definitions work (in practice) like this:

Open source means you can see the source, with a hint of other implications (which vary).

Source available means you can see the source, and is probably being used to exclude the extra implications of open source, but might not be.

Other terms exist and have unknown meanings and always will.

> OK, and I say it's true. Now what?

Now you're incorrect, just like before? :)

More seriously though, the word has a historically well-defined meaning, that lots of people put lots of time into defining really clearly, as others have linked to. It has precedence in courtrooms, lawyers have defined it, serious institutions have corrobated the existence of the meaning, etc etc.

You can choose to ignore that if you like, of course. You can argue for the word to be polysemic and have a new, second meaning, and you can even argue that the old meaning should be totally dropped and we just use this new meaning you're proposing.

But retroactively claiming that the word only ever had the meaning you say it has now is... odd, to put it politely.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com