Comment by Izkata
6 days ago
It is open source (the code is right there), but it's not Open Source due to what GP references. There is a distinction.
6 days ago
It is open source (the code is right there), but it's not Open Source due to what GP references. There is a distinction.
We're talking in English, not in Go. The meaning doesn't change that much because of using uppercase initials. What you're referring to has already been consolidated as "source available".
I'm not a native speaker, but to me "open" sounds like it fits to the case when I can see the code. Am I speaking in Go?
No, it's just not speaking idiomatically. The term "open source", with or without caps, has a commonly understood meaning that's widely used. Whatever the individual words mean in the dictionary, together they have a well defined meaning. Applying it to other situations that contradict that meaning just adds confusion.
As an example, you could describe a spinning disk hard drive as "RAM" because it's a memory device you can randomly access. That would meet the dictionary definitions of "random", "access", and "memory". And yet, everyone would be annoyed with you for doing so. "I have 16TB of RAM in my computer!" "No you don't, Kebab. Stop saying that!"
1 reply →
I'm sorry for the snark in my comment, it intended to just be a funny joke due to the capitalization thing (in Go that's what separates public from private fields, which is a weirdness of the language that surprises people the first time they get to learn it)
As others said, while "open" does indeed mean "reachable" or "available" in this context of source code, it happens that "open source" is a well defined thing to allow not only access, but also modification, reuse, and distribution without limitations. So the "open" in "open source" has its meaning brought to the highest level of openness.
1 reply →
> Open source is source code that is made freely available for possible modification and redistribution. Products include permission to use and view the source code,[1] design documents,[2] or content of the product.
> Generally, open source refers to a computer program in which the source code is available to the general public for usage, modification from its original design, and publication of their version (fork) back to the community.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
OFF: Can we do something about this "open source" = "Open Source" usage? I want the opposite, "open source" = "source available" usage, because
I think the "open source" = "Open Source" usage will be a friction point forever if it stays. Can we ..
It's unnecessarily complicating things to require case sensitivity here. Words don't typically completely change their meaning just because of capitalization. And suppose I write that in a Slack channel where no one uses caps at all? Do I have to use caps anyone to make sure I'm not confusing everyone? How do I pronounce it correctly if I'm giving a speech such that listeners know which one I mean? What if the closed captioner writes the case wrong?
Nah. "Open Source" = "open source", because any other interpretation goes against the norms of written and spoken English, and because it'd be an absolute freaking pain in the neck to create that brand new distinction that's not an issue today.
The term should've really been "Libre source" and that would've been very much in line with the idea behind it. Alas, that boat has sailed.
Sure, if you invent a time machine and rewrite how things actually evolved.
Early on, you mostly had only two kinds of code: Proprietary software whose source code is closely guarded as a trade secret, contrasted with open software where the source code is quite deliberately shared with the world as widely as possible. The former was code owned by companies, the latter was generally academics and hobbyists.
It's only somewhat recently that there has been a fairly large gray area between those two, mostly from companies who want to capitalize on the warm fuzzy feels of Open Source in their marketing material while building a moat that doesn't allow others to do much without the missing proprietary bit, or because the license doesn't allow redistribution, to pick to random examples.
That’s not what open source means. That is generally called source available.
Source available sounds like you gotta buy it.
Think of it this way, if you were going to an event and saw 'buffet available' you'd enquire how to access it. If you saw 'open buffet' you'd know it's just there for the taking.
Open source sounds like it's free to view. It's open.
An open house isn't free to own. You view it.
Open source not meaning the source code is free to view but instead having a meaning related to licensing is silly.
Call it an open license, or just name the license. The code/source isn't the license. I'll die on this hill. Christine was cool but that doesn't make her infallible. Open source meaning open license was a mistake.
> Think of it this way, if you were going to an event and saw 'buffet available' you'd enquire how to access it. If you saw 'open buffet' you'd know it's just there for the taking.
I think maybe you’re making a different point than you mean to?
- Buffet available = you can view the buffet for free, but you have to pay to use it
- Open buffet = you can use the buffet for free, it’s just there for the taking
1 reply →
I'm not sure the same argument that Facebook's marketing teams use, hold a lot of water on a really programming-heavy forum like this :)
That’s just called „source available“.
But since [oO]pen [sS]ource has a broadly understood meaning that's different, we shouldn't deliberately use the same description for both ideas.
If you want to describe it as "source available", I'll happily go along with it. It's not open source, though. The source is visible, but it's not open to use. I mean, you can find the leaked Windows source code online, but it's not open source just because you can look at it.