Hacker News Reader

Comment by YetAnotherNick | Hacker News Reader

Which part of open source mentions that it is NOT open source if the code is not run.

The claim is THIS is the SOURCE that is being opened. The claim can not be verified. If it's not running then this isn't the SOURCE.

If I "Open Source" windows 11 but lie and put some other junk there then I can't CLAIM to have open sourced windows 11 now can I?

That’s not part of the open source definition.

You can claim the open source code isn’t Windows 11, but you can’t complain the code isn’t open source.

  > you can’t complain the code isn’t open source

(unless, of course, the code isn't licensed under an OSI-approved license. Parent didn't actually specify which license the hypothetical not-windows-11 was being "open sourced" under, so we can't actually say for sure whether this hypothetical release is open source or not)

</pedantry>

> I feel like we need more awareness on what is open-source and how does it work. This is NOT open source.

Yes that’s correct. I’m imagining it’s the Apache license like the X code, which is indeed an open source license.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com