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

Open source does not imply open community

blog.feld.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 94 posts

Re: Open source does not imply open community

#61

Post by JimDabell »

rpdillon wrote: post #59
JimDabell wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m well aware of the OSD, but we are talking about social norms, not distribution terms. Direct from the OSI: > The conferees believed the pragmatic, business-case grounds that had motivated Netscape to release their code illustrated a valuable way to engage with potential software users and developers, and convince them to create and improve source code by participating in an engaged community. The conferees also b…

I talked to Simon Phipps about this back in the mid-2000s, so I understand where you're coming from, even if I disagree. I'm curious whether you classify chromium, AOSP, or sqlite as open source.

> I'm curious whether you classify chromium, AOSP, or sqlite as open source.

They are open source software, but they aren’t following the social norms of the open source movement. They are within their rights to develop as they see fit and label their software as open source software, but it’s also reasonable for people to have different expectations and to be surprised when these projects do not collaborate with the public.

Re: Open source does not imply open community

#62

Post by engeljohnb »

JimDabell wrote: post #60
engeljohnb wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's so fundamental they didn't include it in the definition? >Open source is not merely a license choice. Yes it is. The OSD only deals with licenses, therefore whether a software has a "community" has no bearing on whether it's open source. You're claiming the terms laid out in the OSD were motivated by hopes of cultivating a community, but the reasons behind the document are immaterial to this discussion. It only…

> You're claiming the terms laid out in the OSD were motivated by hopes of cultivating a community I didn’t say that. I didn’t bring up the OSD at all. In fact I was explicitly talking about a broader concept than simply license terms from my very first sentence. You were the one that started talking about the OSD. > It only matters how "open source" is defined, and it's plainly not defined by the presence of any com…

>> You're claiming the terms laid out in the OSD were motivated by hopes of cultivating a community.

> I didn’t say that.

If you don't think the statement's true, then what exactly is the meaning of this passage, and what was your purpose in quoting it?

> ... and convince them to create and improve source code by participating in an engaged community.

The thesis of the post is that publishing Open Source software doesn't carry an obligation of maintaining a community. To determine if that's true, what software counts as open source is relevant information. Anything to do with the "movement" isn't.

Your original comment started with the words "Open Source is..." If there's an authoritative document specifying exactly what Open Source is, and it plainly contradicts what you say, then you're wrong.

> Open source is not merely a license choice.

> The OSD defines criteria by which software licenses can be considered open source.

These two statements are exactly contradictory.

Re: Open source does not imply open community

#63

Post by maleldil »

ekianjo wrote: post #28

> There's now a chat group. People with no patience are angry and now you have to babysit them, have your own one-on-ones. There's a "community" now that you're responsible for. You never signed up for this of course YOU signed up for this. There is no well kept secret that this is going on. It should be a surprise for no one.

I don't understand. Is your argument that because these expectations exist, anyone working on open-source has to abide by them automatically?

Re: Open source does not imply open community

#64

Post by JimDabell »

engeljohnb wrote: post #62
JimDabell wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're claiming the terms laid out in the OSD were motivated by hopes of cultivating a community I didn’t say that. I didn’t bring up the OSD at all. In fact I was explicitly talking about a broader concept than simply license terms from my very first sentence. You were the one that started talking about the OSD. > It only matters how "open source" is defined, and it's plainly not defined by the presence of any com…

>> You're claiming the terms laid out in the OSD were motivated by hopes of cultivating a community. > I didn’t say that. If you don't think the statement's true, then what exactly is the meaning of this passage, and what was your purpose in quoting it? > ... and convince them to create and improve source code by participating in an engaged community. The thesis of the post is that publishing Open Source software doe…

> > >> You're claiming the terms laid out in the OSD were motivated by hopes of cultivating a community.

> > I didn’t say that.

> If you don't think the statement's true

I didn’t say that either. Is it really so difficult for you to respond to what I actually say?

I am talking about cultural norms. You are trying to cram what I am saying into something that is purely about license terms. I am repeatedly telling you that I am not talking about license terms and you are repeatedly ignoring that.

> If there's an authoritative document specifying exactly what Open Source is, and it plainly contradicts what you say, then you're wrong.

Again, the OSD defines criteria for licenses, it does not define the movement as a whole. I am talking about the movement, not license terms. If you are unwilling to engage with that point, then don’t. But stop mischaracterising what I am saying.

> > Open source is not merely a license choice.

> > The OSD defines criteria by which software licenses can be considered open source.

> These two statements are exactly contradictory.

They are not. Every time I say “Open Source” you are reading “OSD” but I am repeatedly telling you I am talking about the movement, not the OSD that talks about license terms.

Re: Open source does not imply open community

#65

Post by engeljohnb »

JimDabell wrote: post #64
engeljohnb wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> You're claiming the terms laid out in the OSD were motivated by hopes of cultivating a community. > I didn’t say that. If you don't think the statement's true, then what exactly is the meaning of this passage, and what was your purpose in quoting it? > ... and convince them to create and improve source code by participating in an engaged community. The thesis of the post is that publishing Open Source software doe…

> > >> You're claiming the terms laid out in the OSD were motivated by hopes of cultivating a community. > > I didn’t say that. > If you don't think the statement's true I didn’t say that either. Is it really so difficult for you to respond to what I actually say? I am talking about cultural norms. You are trying to cram what I am saying into something that is purely about license terms. I am repeatedly telling you t…

I must just be an idiot, because I don't know how I'm coming off as if I don't understand your main point. Please, let me back up a bit.

I understand you're talking about the movement, not the definition of open source. Yesyesyes I know. I'm saying that the claims made by the OP are true, and there's nothing anyone can possibly say about the bigger movement that can contradict those claims, because the movement, and what it is, and what it's like, are all not relevant.

I thought the question under discussion was "Does publishing open source obligate someone to form or engage with a community?" Since software can be open source without engaging with any practices typical of the movement, nothing to do with the movement matters to answering this question.

I keep harping on the definition, because the definition of open source is vital to answering this. Open Source software does carry obligations with it, just not any obligations that relate to the bigger movement in any way.

That's my point. Everything below is just clearing up details.

>> If you don't think the statement's true... > Is it really so difficult for you to respond to what I actually say?

I know arguments get tedious once one gets a few layers deep, but I just to be clear. I asked you a question, and a question isn't putting words in your mouth because it's not making any statement. Either you agree with the statement, in which case I think it makes it harder to argue against my bigger point, or you don't agree, and I tried to give you the opportunity to elaborate.

>>>> You're claiming the terms laid out in the OSD were motivated by hopes of cultivating a community.

And the reason I asked it is because I genuinely thought this was the point you were making by quoting that passage. Like I said, I'm probably just stupid, but what point exactly were you making by bringing it up?

Re: Open source does not imply open community

#66

Post by JimDabell »

engeljohnb wrote: post #65
JimDabell wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > >> You're claiming the terms laid out in the OSD were motivated by hopes of cultivating a community. > > I didn’t say that. > If you don't think the statement's true I didn’t say that either. Is it really so difficult for you to respond to what I actually say? I am talking about cultural norms. You are trying to cram what I am saying into something that is purely about license terms. I am repeatedly telling you t…

I must just be an idiot, because I don't know how I'm coming off as if I don't understand your main point. Please, let me back up a bit. I understand you're talking about the movement, not the definition of open source. Yesyesyes I know. I'm saying that the claims made by the OP are true, and there's nothing anyone can possibly say about the bigger movement that can contradict those claims, because the movement, and…

> I'm saying that the claims made by the OP are true, and there's nothing anyone can possibly say about the bigger movement that can contradict those claims, because the movement, and what it is, and what it's like, are all not relevant.

Which claims? “Open Source Does Not Imply Open Community” is what I am responding to and I think it’s very obvious how the intent and social norms of the Open Source movement are relevant to that.

> I thought the question under discussion was "Does publishing open source obligate someone to form or engage with a community?

There is a difference between merely implying something and obligations. From my very first comment:

> Opening the code is a good thing and there’s no obligation for you to do anything more. But it isn’t doing what open source was designed to do; it’s ignoring a key part of it.

I am not saying that you are obliged to engage with the community, I’m saying that there’s a cultural norm to do so – so yes, open source does imply community. I then followed up by showing that this goal has been embedded in the Open Source movement from the very beginning.

> the definition of open source

You keep using this phrase. The OSD is a set of criteria used to define which licenses qualify as open source. The OSD is not a definition for the Open Source movement. You can keep referring to it as “the definition of open source”, but it’s not the definition in the context of this discussion. It has a narrower scope than this discussion, defining one specific aspect of the movement.

> Either you agree with the statement, in which case I think it makes it harder to argue against my bigger point, or you don't agree, and I tried to give you the opportunity to elaborate.

I wasn’t talking about the OSD at all, so rephrasing what I am saying in terms of the OSD is nonsensical. It doesn’t matter whether I agree or disagree – it’s not something I said and it’s not relevant to the point I was making.

> what point exactly were you making by bringing it up?

Again, you are using “Open Source” and “OSD” as synonyms when I am continually pointing out that the OSD defines only the license aspect of the Open Source movement and I am talking about the movement as a whole.

You took a quote that was very clearly ascribing the motivations and character of the Open Source movement and rephrased it to be about the OSD. It wasn’t about the OSD, it was about the movement.

I’ll quote it again:

> The conferees believed the pragmatic, business-case grounds that had motivated Netscape to release their code illustrated a valuable way to engage with potential software users and developers, and convince them to create and improve source code by participating in an engaged community.

Community participation has always been a cultural norm of the Open Source movement. From day one. The fact that they didn’t write it down in the OSD, which is a set of criteria for software licenses does not change that. So when somebody says that “Open Source Does Not Imply Open Community”, it’s fair to say that yes it does. Note that this is not the same thing as saying that somebody is obliged to accept community participation, and it is not anything that software licenses deal with. It’s about social norms.

Re: Open source does not imply open community

#67

Post by em-bee »

engeljohnb wrote: post #55
_ZeD_ wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> To be more specific, Open Source only promises the four fundamental freedoms ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition ). no, that is FSF's free software. I'm sick of coming here and see "open source" as something with "moral values" - stealing it from the free software with "the magic" of conflating the two concepts. Open source is just big software companies stealing from innumerable voluntee…

> Open source is just big software companies stealing from innumerable volunteers Whether you think this is true or not, MIT and BSD licenses still guarantee the four freedoms.

only if you already have the source, the GPL also guarantees that you can get the source even if you don't have it.

Re: Open source does not imply open community

#68

Post by em-bee »

ranger_danger wrote: post #51
saagarjha wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And your argument is that the CoC that does the Monday thing is better, or what?

I think they're saying CoCs are being weaponized to enable arbitrary enforcement/discipline using subjective terminology (which I have noticed as well), and that that's a bad thing. I have also noticed a stark hypocrisy where the moderators do exactly what their own rules say not to do, and they get away with it, but their users don't. It's like they're just using the CoC to suppress opinions they don't like.

if a CoC can be weaponized, then the CoC is badly written. the existence of a CoC by itself is not the issue, even though some people claim that it is. that is a problem in itself.

Re: Open source does not imply open community

#69

Post by engeljohnb »

JimDabell wrote: post #66
engeljohnb wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I must just be an idiot, because I don't know how I'm coming off as if I don't understand your main point. Please, let me back up a bit. I understand you're talking about the movement, not the definition of open source. Yesyesyes I know. I'm saying that the claims made by the OP are true, and there's nothing anyone can possibly say about the bigger movement that can contradict those claims, because the movement, and…

> I'm saying that the claims made by the OP are true, and there's nothing anyone can possibly say about the bigger movement that can contradict those claims, because the movement, and what it is, and what it's like, are all not relevant. Which claims? “Open Source Does Not Imply Open Community” is what I am responding to and I think it’s very obvious how the intent and social norms of the Open Source movement are rel…

EDIT: Okay fine, I see it your way. Open source may often imply open community. I'll stop trying to argue that it doesn't. Instead, I posit that open source should not imply open community, even if that's what the originators of the movement intended.

I'm leaving my first draft of this comment below because there's a couple of points I just can't help but be a pedant over.

> Opening the code is a good thing and there’s no obligation for you to do anything more. But it isn’t doing what open source was designed to do; it’s ignoring a key part of it.

Yes, we don't agree on whether it's a "key part." That doesn't mean I misunderstood you, it means I think you're wrong.

> I’m saying that there’s a cultural norm to do so – so yes, open source does imply community.

No, it doesn't. Open Source doesn't imply anything except that the software is released under a license consistent with the OSD, and the cultural norms have no bearing on that.

Just because you expect it doesn't mean it's implied. If I release software today and call it "open source," but don't provide any means to send me outside contributions, can anyone reasonably claim that my software isn't open source? No. Therefore, community is not implied.

> The OSD is not a definition for the Open Source movement.

If the OP were making claims about what the open source movement is or isn't, then this would be pertinent. I don't think they're saying that though, I think they're saying that open source does not imply open community.

> It doesn’t matter whether I agree or disagree – it’s not something I said and it’s not relevant to the point I was making.

And I say it doesn't matter what you said, because when I said

> if you don't think the statement is true

I was addressing whether the statement was true of false, not whether it's the main point you were trying to make. If it's true, then it supports my argument, regardless of whether it happened to be the claim you were making. It's like...

> Squares and circles are the same.

> A square has four sides, and circles have no sides. Therefore, circles and squares are exclusive.

> I never said anything about how many sides any shapes have.

You see how it doesn't matter whether it's the exact claim you made, it only matters whether it's true? The point of debate is for both parties to find out what's true.

> Community participation has always been a cultural norm of the Open Source movement.

I really don't see how that's so different and contradictory to

> the terms laid out in the OSD were motivated by hopes of cultivating a community.

> no obligation for you to do anything more.

I think if you agree with this sentence you agree with OP, so I don't know why you need to clarify what's typical in the movement. OP's point still stands.

Re: Open source does not imply open community

#70

Post by engeljohnb »

em-bee wrote: post #67
engeljohnb wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Open source is just big software companies stealing from innumerable volunteers Whether you think this is true or not, MIT and BSD licenses still guarantee the four freedoms.

only if you already have the source, the GPL also guarantees that you can get the source even if you don't have it.

I guess that's a pretty good point I never thought about. I've never come across software released under a permissive license that didn't either come with the source code, or host it somewhere convenient like github.
Post reply on HN