Comment by wraptile
20 days ago
I feel like we need more awareness on what is open-source and how does it work. This is NOT open source. This is, at best, source available but as there is no way to confirm that this code even runs anywhere ever it's entirely a bad faith performance to trick people, deceive regulators and stain the entire open source movement.
I sincerely hope that the main stream media does not fall for this and calls it out. It's not rocket science. It's really really simple - this is not good for anyone.
> there is no way to confirm that this code even runs anywhere ever
I'm confused what this has to do with "open source" or how it affects public perception.
I agree with you that it's totally possible to lie about what is actually running in production and that sharing some code doesn't mean it's that code, but how is this a new problem?
> This is NOT open source.
So in the end are we going by the OSI's definition of Open Source, or not? Can we make up our mind please?
Every time anyone posts here even a slightly modified Open Source license (e.g. a MIT license with an extra restriction that prevents megacorporations from using it but doesn't affect anyone else) people come out of the woodwork with their pitchforks screaming "this is not Open Source!", and insist that the Open Source Definition decides what is Open Source or not, and not to call anything which doesn't meet that definition "Open Source".
And yet here we are with a repository licensed under an actually Open Source license, and suddenly this is the most upvoted comment, and now people don't actually care about the Open Source Definition after all?
Either we go by the OSI's definition, in which case this is open source, regardless of what you think the motivations are for opening up this code, or we go by the "vibes" of whether it feels open source, in which case a modified MIT license which prohibits companies with a trillion+ market cap from using it is also open source.
You’re discussing licenses, their concern is about calling a thing that cannot function without the associated proprietary back-end “open source” for marketing.
If you want to make the argument only about the license, then you should make sure you are consistent by referencing “open source license” every single time instead. Their point is that companies use releases like this to claim they “open source” simply by releasing some useless code under an open source license.
I think if you simply replace “license” with the word “software” in those same OSI tenants, you’ll suddenly find that this “open source” project doesn’t come close to being the “open source” most people believe in. They don’t just expect the definition to stop with the license if you’re going to call something “open source” instead of “has an open source license”. OSI only provides a definition of “Open Source” with respect to licenses.
So while you may consider only a singular definition by an American organization, founded by corporations, designed to focus on clarifying and promoting the licensing aspect of open source, as the end-all be-all all-encompassing definition for the words “open source”, others argue that there are more things in software than just a license and they hope the media won’t be fooled into reporting about X offering “open source” access.
No, I'm just arguing against the blatant double standard I frequently see here on HN.
Personally I agree with you; to me this isn't open source in spirit. But I also think that a modified MIT license with an anti-megacorporation use restriction is still open source in spirit, regardless of what the Open Source Definition says.
Why is the "this is not open source even though it's OSI approved" comment here the most upvoted, while I frequently see the "this is open source even though it's not OSI approved" opinions heavily argued against and downvoted to hell?
My point is: either pick one or the other. Either the OSI is the authority on what is open source, or not. You can't have it both ways and argue either way depending on whether it's convenient to you. (And by "you" I don't mean you specifically, but people here in general.)
This is open source. The license is the Apache license that meets the open source definition:
https://github.com/xai-org/x-algorithm/blob/main/LICENSE
By license sure, it is. But having a look at https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en#four-freedoms I kind of doubt it really is.
Freedom 1 is dubiously fulfilled. I can modify it, sure, but I can't modify it when the program runs on my data for me. Freedom 0 isn't fulfilled. I don't have the necessary input data to run the program myself.
(Of course the free software definition wasn't written for today's world, and the clarification below goes somewhat against my argument for Freedom 0. Feel free to pick this apart.)
That's a fair point, but I don't think anyone was stating it's free software. It doesn't need to meet the four freedoms to be open source, just the open source definition.
This is open source. You're thinking of trusted execution, audits, licenses with disclosure requirements, or signed affidavits which is a totally different thing than open source. Otherwise you could claim that just about anything isn't open source just because you're not sure what is happening on someone else's computer.
ok. This is open source of _what_? Without tying the code to a real life object the intent is absolutely meaningless. Here's the open source code for hackernews:
``` @route("/"): def main(): return "hello world" ```
What does that give us? We can't run this to host our own hackernews as it's clearly not runnable. We can't really learn anything from this as it doesn't not represent any real reality. Maybe it's a fun reading exercise but that's about it.
Open source means that I can take source and run it to ensure it's trusted. Ascii characters being visible on my screen is just a nice byproduct of this goal.
Which part of open source mentions that it is NOT open source if the code is not run.
The claim is THIS is the SOURCE that is being opened. The claim can not be verified. If it's not running then this isn't the SOURCE.
If I "Open Source" windows 11 but lie and put some other junk there then I can't CLAIM to have open sourced windows 11 now can I?
That’s not part of the open source definition.
You can claim the open source code isn’t Windows 11, but you can’t complain the code isn’t open source.
4 replies →