Hacker News Reader

Comment by ternaryoperator | Hacker News Reader

Creative Commons isn't a bar to being open source, but the Non-Commercial part certainly is. Definitely not OSS.

If the source code is publicly available, that is open source. What you mean is that it is not FOSS.

It doesn't meet the open source definition point 6, since it discriminates against fields of endeavour https://opensource.org/osd (possibly point 5 as well, if a commercial entity counts as a "group of people")

A typical distinction is „source available“ or „public source“ vs „open source“ (no restrictions on use other than potentially keeping the openness intact and attribution).

It's only "open source" if it's from the OSI region of France. Otherwise, it's just "sparkling available".

The difference here is more important than that.

I'm sure the people who insist on the proper usage of the term "champagne" claim their linguistic crusade is important too!

Imagine a "champagne" you can't use for parties. [1]

Ok, your birthday party and weeding are excluded.

If you are in a dinner at home foe two, is it a party?

Funerals?

Let's buy a real champagne instead.

[1] It has a microphone and a camera and GPS and use AI to detect parties. The data is send to the servers and stored securetely.

I don't drink, so I have no opinion on champagne, and I don't use Campsite, so I don't have any opinion on whether the license is reasonable for what it offers. All I know is that the words "open source" and "source available" would look and sound basically synonymous in pretty much any other context, and the common consensus that one of them apparently means something much more prescriptive will never make sense to me from a linguistic perspective.

You are going to have a difficult life experience if you cling to the idea that things have to make sense from a linguistic perspective where most others seem to have found acceptance in how things are interpreted and used in the real world.

Words are context sensitive. Openness here refers to the user freedoms, which go beyond the permission to read but not reuse.

Source that is merely available could be regarded as dangerous, if you happen to later copy ideas from the proprietary origin in your own implementation without even being aware of it. I could see the point in trying to stay away from it as programmer.

Good thing we’re not debating the term “free software“… ;-)

I can simultaneously understand what's meant when people say "open source" versus "source available" and still think that it's a silly, poorly-named distinction and therefore compare it to "champagne" versus "sparkling cider".

Any of the Creative Commons licenses are not recognised as open source licenses by the Open Source Initiative. [0]

[0] https://opensource.org/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com