51–57 of 57 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you name some?
I've been sustaining myself for a couple of years now on my open source project (BookStack). Still going in a positive direction. Other than that, some that come to mind: Proxmox, Opnsense, SnipeIT, GitLab, Canonical, Codeweavers/wine, Plausible, Home-assistant/open-home-foundation/NabuCasa, FreeBSD Foundation, Laravel, Blender, Godot. Within there is a whole mix of business plans, some offer hardware, some are open…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's customary on HN to avoid a repetition of a topic that's already being actively discussed. The original post is still on the front page and the licensing issue is being heavily discussed there. I've linked to your post from that thread.
Sure, but the title change is strange. I'd even say changing the meaning makes it outrage bait in the first place, because now HN has taken a stance, where before it was just the article author's opinion.
But with this title, the discussion can be drawn towards the question of whether the license would or wouldn’t meet the widely regarded definition of open source, rather than whether it meets each commenter’s own definition of open source, which would be a much less gratifying discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but the title change is strange. I'd even say changing the meaning makes it outrage bait in the first place, because now HN has taken a stance, where before it was just the article author's opinion.
The title we changed it to is a verbatim sentence from the post (which is what we always try to do when we change a title), and thus is also/still the article author's opinion. But with this title, the discussion can be drawn towards the question of whether the license would or wouldn’t meet the widely regarded definition of open source, rather than whether it meets each commenter’s own definition of open source, whi…
(I've frequently suggested title changes to HN's mod team, I'm pretty familiar with this.)
Again with the pointless discussion about what the "widely regarded definition of open source" is. The source is there. That's it.
The term "open source" was coined for a specific meaning, and codified. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source Destroying the meaning of words is an activity for Orwellian villains.
Again with the pointless discussion about what the "widely regarded definition of open source" is. The source is there. That's it.
"open source" has been defined by the OSI since decades and this does not fit that definition.
Again with the pointless discussion about what the "widely regarded definition of open source" is. The source is there. That's it.
> That's it. No, that's not it. What you can do with the source code is just as important as the source code being available.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The title we changed it to is a verbatim sentence from the post (which is what we always try to do when we change a title), and thus is also/still the article author's opinion. But with this title, the discussion can be drawn towards the question of whether the license would or wouldn’t meet the widely regarded definition of open source, rather than whether it meets each commenter’s own definition of open source, whi…
NB: A subtitle is one option HN prefers, but there are other options, including lifting a line from the article itself. "Always" is too strong a qualifier. (I've frequently suggested title changes to HN's mod team, I'm pretty familiar with this.)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29425675> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42679582>