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

'Source available' is not open source, and that's okay

dri.es

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 172 posts

Re: 'Source available' is not open source, and that's okay

#161

Post by jraph »

ModernMech wrote: post #140
jraph wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Open source isn't really about the license, and it's also not even really about the source; open source is a philosophy centering open development and collaboration. Not really. A project under an open source license which doesn't accept contributions is still open source. It is totally about the license and the source code availability. There are interesting things to say about the various development models, and…

I'm not actually claiming that an open source license that doesn't accept contributions is not open source. See my post where I say it's not a bright line. But claiming open source is totally about the source and the license completely erases the diverse and vibrant community that has formed around open source over the past 40 years. The license is simply putting the community ethos into a legal document. The source…

> See my post where I say it's not a bright line.

I know you are stating this, but I don't agree.

The human aspects, the diverse and vibrant community that has formed around open source over the past 40 years are key, I just think that we should cleanly separate the concepts.

A piece of software is open source if and only if it's released under an open source license. It's necessary and sufficient. Also "source available" is necessary but not sufficient.

Then we can and should talk about how and why open source and free software appeared, and the other social aspects around open source and free software and how they are crucial.

I'm not stating that the whole thing is not important (clearly, it is), it's just that keeping the concepts separate and clean helps communicating clearly.

My stance is already mostly not technical actually. I would push for free software and the human rights it embodies way more than open source despite open source and free software concerning mostly the same actual software. The tools (licenses) are mostly the same, but the intent and the approach can be very different.

Even the open source definition and the free software definitions are tools. They must remain clear and simple to be useful and powerful.

If you mix everything, we can talk about nothing.

There are many ways to develop open source software, including alone from a garage by throwing the source code out of the window without never looking outside. If you make the community aspect part of the open source definition, you break this.

Re: 'Source available' is not open source, and that's okay

#162

Post by jrowen »

pseudalopex wrote: post #158
jrowen wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well certainly there is some reasonable middle ground between everything and nothing, which is presumably what licenses like this one are trying to explore? People are afforded rights beyond just looking at it, they can run it, modify it, learn from it, there's just some specific things that are carved out (to my understanding as a layperson). Every major voice that I've seen comment on this thus far seems to acknowl…

> Would you say that the "free software" and "open source" movements are largely synonymous? Would you say Canadians and Americans are largely synonymous? They have many shared interests. There are many dual citizens. The differences are subtle often. > The best arguments I've seen in this thread revolve around the idea that you can trust that you can pull an "open source" library into your project without hesitation…

> Would you say Canadians and Americans are largely synonymous? They have many shared interests. There are many dual citizens. The differences are subtle often.

What would source available be in this analogy?

> Several people highlighted a key idea of open source and free software is you can run an open source program without hesitation. This was not beautiful? These arguments were inferior?

I think we're saying the same thing. Those are the arguments I was referring to.

> Libraries used parts of programs. Programs became libraries. Programs evolved into different programs.

I don't know what this means.

> I don't know how the submitted article could have contradicted this more clearly.

Which part?

Re: 'Source available' is not open source, and that's okay

#163

Post by singpolyma3 »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #67

I always wonder why people bother with providing source under a source available license. It makes outside contributions a lot less likely. Your active community of people working on the code base effectively becomes your employees. There's little to no benefit to outside users. Any work they do on the code is effectively free work they do for you that entitles them to nothing. Including free usage and distribution o…

Most open source never gets outside contribution either.

The point of sharing the code is to benefit the user. Or to benefit yourself because of the marketing that comes from users wanting this. Not to get free labour.

Re: 'Source available' is not open source, and that's okay

#164

Post by Supermancho »

NiloCK wrote: post #77
Supermancho wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people have internalized the words "open" "source" to mean more than the words, even going so far as to eschew the benefit (which was at the heart of the Stallman problem) because it doesn't fit the desired ethos and license. It's counterproductive, indeed.

People use the term to refer to a proprietary definition from the OSI, which is an OK convention. I just wish they would capitalize it, and leave the normal interpretation of the words also available.

> People use the term to refer to a proprietary definition from the OSI

some people do. A vast minority of the superset. Most people (person on the street) take the words "open source" at face value and dispense with the whole idea when faced with a needless ideological argument. This specific process of thought is casually observed in most entry compsci highschool/college classrooms. The whole point of open source was to achieve a goal, which has ironically been subject to feature creep.

Re: 'Source available' is not open source, and that's okay

#165

Post by pseudalopex »

jrowen wrote: post #162
pseudalopex wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would you say that the "free software" and "open source" movements are largely synonymous? Would you say Canadians and Americans are largely synonymous? They have many shared interests. There are many dual citizens. The differences are subtle often. > The best arguments I've seen in this thread revolve around the idea that you can trust that you can pull an "open source" library into your project without hesitation…

> Would you say Canadians and Americans are largely synonymous? They have many shared interests. There are many dual citizens. The differences are subtle often. What would source available be in this analogy? > Several people highlighted a key idea of open source and free software is you can run an open source program without hesitation. This was not beautiful? These arguments were inferior? I think we're saying the…

An expanded analogy would not increase understanding I think. It would be better to ask and answer the question behind the analogy request probably.

Did we say the same thing? You suggested a library and a completed end-user product should be considered differently I thought. I suggested they should be considered similarly.

The title of the submitted article said it was okay source available is not open source. It said DHH's choice of license reacts to a real pressure in open source. It said source available was defensible and generous.

Re: 'Source available' is not open source, and that's okay

#166

Post by jrowen »

pseudalopex wrote: post #165
jrowen wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would you say Canadians and Americans are largely synonymous? They have many shared interests. There are many dual citizens. The differences are subtle often. What would source available be in this analogy? > Several people highlighted a key idea of open source and free software is you can run an open source program without hesitation. This was not beautiful? These arguments were inferior? I think we're saying the…

An expanded analogy would not increase understanding I think. It would be better to ask and answer the question behind the analogy request probably. Did we say the same thing? You suggested a library and a completed end-user product should be considered differently I thought. I suggested they should be considered similarly. The title of the submitted article said it was okay source available is not open source. It sa…

> An expanded analogy would not increase understanding I think.

Why not? Is there a better one? The relationship between open source and source available (and free software) is the core of what I'm trying to understand.

> You suggested a library and a completed end-user product should be considered differently I thought.

I suggested that later. I maybe should not have used library at that point. I'm not saying that they should fundamentally be considered differently. I'm just saying it might behoove the movement to be a little bit more welcoming, and guiding, of some of these gray area efforts.

Software licensing is fundamentally a social/political/legal "people" issue, not a mathematical/logical one. Clinging to a beautiful elegant mathematical rule that sticks it head in the sand w.r.t. the messy world of human behavior, while also claiming the moral high ground, is maybe what I feel is a bit of bad faith (or, more charitably, clashing ideologies that I feel could be united by finding a middle ground). I would also argue that there is somewhat more responsibility to show good faith on the side of the gatekeepers than the people being kept out.

> The title of the submitted article said it was okay source available is not open source.

When I said "huge drama" I was referring to the whole thing - the posts referenced by that article, the comments, the words that have been spilt on how many words have been spilt on this issue. The point of the article is, it's great, but do not call it open source. Because there is a stringent mathematical definition of open source, and even though there's a wider world of projects that might not fully identify with that but want to participate in the colloquial spirit of being "open," we want to be very clear that they are not a part of this and need to sit at their own "not-open" table.

Re: 'Source available' is not open source, and that's okay

#167

Post by yencabulator »

birjolaxew wrote: post #144
Ekaros wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it comes to analogies, with open source you have a public park you are free to use. With source available it is public park you are free to look at behind a fence... So not actually public park. Still a fine thing to exist. As user as well. Difference between I can use this for free and I have to pay to use this. Even if I can see parts inside is significant. It might not be real principle, but at least it is…

Wouldn't it be more along the lines of "source available" being a public park that you're free to access but can't monetize by e.g. selling tickets to - while "open source" would let you do whatever you want with the park. Ironically I think the analogy explains why many people find "source available" to align with their moral compass more than "open source" necessarily does.

Source available is a park where there is some set of activities you are forbidden from doing in the park, but you're never sure exactly which. One day you realize your driveway goes directly into the park, and if you transit to your office through the park you get sued. The park vendor is also trying to get you to buy a home inside the park.

Re: 'Source available' is not open source, and that's okay

#168

Post by insane_dreamer »

NiloCK wrote: post #84

Again and forever: These fights stem from usage of a proprietary definition of Open Source (the OSI's). Obviously the definition doesn't resonate with DHH, and he uses the words 'open' and 'source' colloquially. Open, as in a book or a window, source, as in the thing that gets compiled into bits and bobs that run on computers. You wouldn't jump on someone's "open letter" to city hall because of a lack of freedom to f…

I for one disagree that software can't be "open source" if the OSI says it's not open source. There are varying degrees of open source. Since when do they get the right to define what is "open source"?

In my view, "open source" but doesn't give you permission to host a commercial service that directly competes with it, is still a degree of open source, and reasonable.

Re: 'Source available' is not open source, and that's okay

#169

Post by insane_dreamer »

Incipient wrote: post #25

Personally I think differentiation between "open source" and "source available" is good. Open source, is, essentially software that I expect to be able to use commercially and tweak if required - but I'm own my own, and I pay for support. Source available means I can basically help debug issues I have...but I expect that a paid licence is required and will have a selection of limitations (number of nodes, etc).

that's not what source available means to me -- it just means you can look at the source code -- what you can actually do with that code, or whether or not you need a paid license, whether you can use the code in a non-commercial case only but not commercial, all of those are nuances that would be specified in the license. There are many different options from highly restrictive to highly permissive -- the only thing they have in common is that you can see the source code.

"open source" can have restrictions too. GPL is highly restrictive because it requires any code linked with the GPL code to be GPL too.

Re: 'Source available' is not open source, and that's okay

#170

Post by pseudalopex »

jrowen wrote: post #160
pseudalopex wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shit on, hardline, ornery, benign, selfish, good faith are loaded words. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine.[1] > Ultimately yeah we're at the whim of the company, but that's the status quo, this still seems like a step in the right direction to be encouraged and fostered and not shit on. I just don't think the hardline strategy is really winning hearts and minds to the cause. This is not the status quo in open…

I will give you shit on, hardline, and selfish - my apologies. I need to slow down. By status quo I meant the closed source / proprietary world, which also supports a lot of open source projects with contributions and funding. Source available would seem, to me, to be creating an avenue to move closed things in a more open direction, and bring more people "into the fold", per sé. > And do you understand the question…

> I will give you shit on, hardline, and selfish - my apologies. I need to slow down.

This was a good step. But you will not admit calling it was loaded to call people who prefer legal clarity ornery?

> That question was motivated by the several comments expressing fears of being sued. I'm curious if there is a pattern of behavior among source available projects driving that, or if it's more just in principle.

A license is a legal document. Its purpose is to communicate when and to fear being sued or not. Source available, closed source, or open source are the same in this context. Have software copyright owners sued license violators? Yes. Treating legal documents seriously is not just principle.

> Fair—but, my point was that, there are people that are trying to do good things for humanity (not talking about DHH here), and open source is trying to do good things for humanity, and I don't know it just sucks to see them at odds and divided. But I do understand better the functional definition of open source and the zeroth freedom, even if it still feels a bit dogmatic to me. Or maybe just a clash between libertarian and liberal ideals.

This was not a conflict between open source and source available. It was a conflict between open source and someone who knew better who used the term misleadingly for promotion.

Dogma to you is learning from history to others.

Libertarian and liberal may be the right words or not. But the impression the different groups have different ideals is correct.

Post reply on HN