Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gumroad’s source is available

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 224 posts

Re: Gumroad’s source is available

#141

Post by gpm »

azemetre wrote: post #124
whalesalad wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This is not pedantry, this is adhering to the actual definition of open source that is generally accepted in our community: https://opensource.org/osd > Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code

The "OSD" is not the actual definition of open source. The OSI has no special rights to the term open source (despite their failed attempt to trademark the term). The OSI did not coin the term, their founders did not coin the term, the term was in use to refer to non-commercial software with publicly posted source prior to the OSIs existence.

Open source is like any english term, its meaning is defined by its use, not by some special interest group.

The complaint about using open source to refer to non-commercial licenses absolutely is pedantry. But more than that, it's not even objectively correct pedantry. It, like most language, is subjective.

(Which isn't to say that I think this license complies with the common use of the term open source as actually used, but I disagree with your argument for why that's the case).

Re: Gumroad’s source is available

#142

Post by lolinder »

singpolyma3 wrote: post #134
lolinder wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GNU has a helpful chart where they clearly show that there is a sliver of "nonfree open source" licenses that are available [0]. > The term “open source” software is used by some people to mean more or less the same category as free software. It is not exactly the same class of software: they accept some licenses that we consider too restrictive, and there are free software licenses they have not accepted. However, t…

Guarantee that all "nonfree open source" is different readings. Take the NASA case. If youu read it as strictly as Stallman does then it violates the OSD also. The people at OSI at the time it was submitted read it more like a lawyer and decided it was compliant. Possibly today's OSI would disagree. Possibly tomorrow's FSF would agree. It's not a difference between free software and open source but a difference betwe…

Which point of the OSD would be violated by the NASA clause if read the same way that the FSF reads it?

Re: Gumroad’s source is available

#143

Post by jhanschoo »

whalesalad wrote: post #125
azemetre wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not pedantry, this is adhering to the actual definition of open source that is generally accepted in our community: https://opensource.org/osd > Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code

No good deed goes unpunished around here.

Are you talking about philipjoubert's good deed of linking the Gumroad source and informing HN that it is now source available (albeit misrepresenting its license out of ignorance or otherwise)? Or are you talking about Gumroad's good deed of making its source publicly available?

Re: Gumroad’s source is available

#144

Post by jhanschoo »

udev4096 wrote: post #78

What a joke of a license. This is not open source. Why the fuck is everyone in VC land trying to change the true definition of open source?

I think this reaction is misdirected. Yes, the license is restrictive, but Gumroad doesn't seem to be claiming themselves that the code is open source. I think OP made a mistake out of ignorance and said that it was open source.

Re: Gumroad’s source is available

#145

Post by jhanschoo »

diggan wrote: post #136
whalesalad wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just so hyperbolic? It's code for a project you can explore and learn from. License is not permissive? It's a friggin rails app - just look at the model or mechanism you are interested in copying, figure out the approach taken, and recreate that approach. Why is everyone in here with pitchforks?

> Why is everyone in here with pitchforks? Personally, I get pissed when companies misuse "open source" because without open source, I probably wouldn't be a developer in the first place. Just call things what they are, and leave existing terminology alone. Defending "open source" is defending the opportunity for others who were in the same situation as myself in the past. Otherwise we'll quickly see more of what alr…

> Personally, I get pissed when companies misuse "open source" because without open source

In this instance, where did Gumroad claim that its code was open source?

Re: Gumroad’s source is available

#146

Post by azemetre »

whalesalad wrote: post #133
azemetre wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not hyperbolic. We're in a profession that elevates each other via open source. Saying something that is open source when it's not is no different than snake oil salesmen selling whiskey elixirs in the 1800s as cure alls. They are lying and need to be called out.

Hard disagree. In the real world, the source of this app is open and therefore it is open source. You guys are behaving like extremists. Would you prefer nothing at all? Sounds like in this case everyone here is looking past the golden egg in front of you - a successful rails app you can explore and play with - and focusing entirely on the wrong thing.

You're acting as if there aren't already tens of thousands of actual open source projects that exist just fine, some even make enough money to support continued development.

Why are you acting like the alternative is to burn down the system, you realize that there are plenty of people, organizations, and businesses that make actual open source software right? Like today even.

Re: Gumroad’s source is available

#147

Post by ponorin »

whalesalad wrote: post #123
clcaev wrote: post #24

Could we please change the title to say : "Gumroad is source available"? This license is clearly fails OSD and is not open source by the industry standard; perpetuating a false statement is unhelpful. https://opensource.org/osd

[flagged]

> The source is open. It can be seen, edited, run yourself.

I can also take and eat food from the supermarket without paying. I just have to pay later in multiples, get jailed, or both. Or not.

Re: Gumroad’s source is available

#149

Post by kstrauser »

gpm wrote: post #141
azemetre wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not pedantry, this is adhering to the actual definition of open source that is generally accepted in our community: https://opensource.org/osd > Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code

The "OSD" is not the actual definition of open source. The OSI has no special rights to the term open source (despite their failed attempt to trademark the term). The OSI did not coin the term, their founders did not coin the term, the term was in use to refer to non-commercial software with publicly posted source prior to the OSIs existence. Open source is like any english term, its meaning is defined by its use, no…

All true, but language changes. And today, open source in this context is universally understood to mean software released under a license complying with the OSD.

Free software doesn't have to mean "software released under the GPL, MIT, BSD, or other FSF-approved license". And yet, in this context, it universally does.

Post reply on HN