[memefrog]

"Source available" is not open source and has nothing to do with open source. Open source never confused people until bad-faith actors started intentionally trying to confuse them by labeling things that aren't open source as "open source". Open source has a precise definition and it has had it for decades. If you describe your software as open source and it is not available under an open source license then you are a malicious bad-faith fraudster that is trying to use the reputation of open source software to prop up a fraudulent practice based on lies.

It doesn't matter one whit whether people can "pay the bills". It's totally irrelevant to the discussion. If you can't make money making open source software, then go get a job. This is like people complaining they did a degree in underwater basket weaving and can't get a job, or people complaining that they can't get a job as an artist or a guitarist. Guess what, most people can't make money from their hobbies. Some programmers get pretty lucky and turn their hobbies into jobs. If you want to give it a go, good on you. Most people don't even want to. Of those that do want to, most do not succeed. You have no entitlement to be successful in your attempts to do so.

And there's no rule that says that you have to release things you make as open source software. If you want to make money, you might find that the best way to do that is not to release your software as open source. That's your prerogative. But you can't make that choice and then also choose to ride on the reputation of the "open source" label. That label means something, and has meant the same thing for decades. You can choose: release your software as open source and call it that, or release it as "source available" and be honest about it.

And you're completely wrong when you say "They have not won the culture war on what the term means". They absolutely have. The only place I've ever seen anyone pretend that "open source" can legitimately mean something other than the OSI's definition is on this forum.

[warkanlock]

> Guess what, most people can't make money from their hobbies

Essentially this. As talking heads said,

Never for money Always for love

[scrollaway]

I have a dozen hobbies and have been able to make money out of every single one I've actually tried to. Be it as a coach/tutor, organizing events, creating things, etc.

My girlfriend wanted to turn her life-long artistic craft (ceramics) into proper work so we opened an art studio together.

It's not hard, problem's with you, and problem is certainly with anyone arguing that you can't make money with open source. Just because you don't know how doesn't mean it's not possible.

Living off your hobbies makes for a good life.

[godelski]

Most people can't make money from their businesses. I'm not sure why that means they shouldn't try.

[ezekg]

> The only place I've ever seen anyone pretend that "open source" can legitimately mean something other than the OSI's definition is on this forum.

I don’t think this is entirely accurate in practice. I talk to businesses, individuals, and enterprises every single day and they all refer to my SAS as open source software. So I don’t think everybody sees OSS like you and OSI wills them to. I’m stepping on toes by saying that, but from my sample size, that’s what I see and hear.

The only places I’ve seen this dogma is here on HN, in GitHub issues about gaslighting [^0], and on r/opensource.

[^0]: https://github.com/n8n-io/n8n/issues/40 (and other linked issues therein)

[bruce511]

>> I talk to businesses, individuals, and enterprises every single day and they all refer to my SAS as open source software.

I know it gets tedious, but its useful to politely correct this terminology when it's used incorrectly.

I get that managers are not techies, but allowing them to use this term is harmful to them.

A) they heard the term from one of their programmers, which means the programmer doesn't understand the difference, which can lead to legal troubles or

B) they know the term, but use it incorrectly here, which they could then say to an actual programmer, which he then treats as open source, and can cause legal troubles.

[godelski]

> I get that managers are not techies, but allowing them to use this term is harmful to them.

All I'm saying is that if the words you use have a reasonable interpretation that is different from what is intended, it is better to just adopt new phrasing.

> which can lead to legal troubles

I very much doubt this. LeCun has been calling MAIR's work Open Source for quite awhile and people have been arguing about it being Source Available and not Open Source™. IANAL but I have a feeling that if OSI took Meta to court that they would lose, just like I expect Taco John to lose Taco Tuesday and how Bayer lost aspirin. I'd say that the case would probably even be clearer than those, as all Meta needs is a dictionary. I'm sure there's something similar to Roger's test for this.

Fwiw, I don't know a single person, in the flesh, that thinks Open Source is different from Source Available. My bubble is mostly nerds and techy folks. I was only introduced to the OSI definition here on HN, and I was already starting graduate school by that time, even having work experience developing software. I'm not sure what bubble I'm in or the "OSI's definition is well known" is in, but clearly we have to recognize that at least people like me exist. It seems like we're not uncommon either.

[bruce511]

I didn't mean legal troubles as in from OSI,but legal troubles from a copyright holder if the source is treated as Open by a programmer.

Open software can be distributed freely. If a programmer is told it is Open, there is a chance they will unwittingly use it in a way that is not permissable under the actual license terms.

Even as an honest mistake, this can lead to serious copyright violations that some companies will not hesitate to demand payment for.

[memefrog]

>Fwiw, I don't know a single person, in the flesh, that thinks Open Source is different from Source Available.

Then educate them. Open source has had a stable definition since before I was born. It is not up for debate. All of a sudden in the last couple of years shitty people have tried to confuse people by labelling non-free licenses 'open source'. That is fraudulent.

[ezekg]

The problem is that I'm not talking to managers when seeing the term open source, most of the time I'm talking to programmers. Literally all techies.

Many of them can use, modify, and distribute my SAS free of charge, like every other OSS license they know, so it actually won't get them into legal trouble. My SAS is open source to them, because the ELv2 only has a single usage restriction and that's not their use-case. For most, it's more permissive than GPL/AGPL!

I'm not going to correct them.

[bruce511]

Fair enough. If your license makes it "virtual Open Source" in their hands, then they can call it as such and use it as such.

And sure, while ELv2 is not an OSI open license, it's not exactly a proprietary license either. So the line here is very blurred.

Your position in this case makes sense.

[pydry]

>The only places I’ve seen this dogma is here on HN, in GitHub issues about gaslighting [^0], and on r/opensource.

Part of the problem is the "Open Software Foundation" likes to take a bunch of corporate money and then pen definitions of what "really is" and "really isn't" open source that people pick up on.

[memefrog]

They established the definition and nobody had a problem with it for decades. It has nothing to do with money.

[godelski]

> "Source available" is not open source and has nothing to do with open source. Open source never confused people until bad-faith actors started intentionally trying to confuse them by labeling things that aren't open source as "open source".

I do not know how one can say such a thing with a straight face. The confusion does not require bad faith actors, but just the ability to speak English. LITERACY is what causes the confusion. It is right there in the words: _open_ source.

> Open: adjective

> 1: having no enclosing or confining barrier : accessible on all or nearly all sides

> 2a(1): being in a position or adjustment to permit passage : not shut or locked

> 3a: completely free from concealment : exposed to general view or knowledge

> Synonyms: clear, free, unobstructed, ==> _AVAILABLE_ <==

Why is there confusion? Because the source is right there, in clear view, unobstructed, and not hidden behind any doors. Yes, OSI's definition also fits the definition. It is also a reasonable interpretation of those combined words. But to say that confusing "available source" and "open source" is only caused because of bad faith actors is ludicrous when they mean the same thing. Talk about calling the kettle black.

> Guess what, most people can't make money from their hobbies... You have no entitlement to be successful in your attempts to do so.

Guess what, most people can't make money from their businesses. You're not entitled to have a successful business. So what? This is irrelevant. We're talking about the definition of a word that we can look up in the dictionary.

> The only place I've ever seen anyone pretend that "open source" can legitimately mean something other than the OSI's definition is on this forum.

Being terminally online is not an excuse for not being able to open a dictionary. It isn't an excuse for understanding that the rest of the world does not think identically to you. Go touch some grass and talk with people offline. I guarantee you that they will confuse these words. Even if we assumed "bad faith actors" caused this, well if Taco John's can lose "Taco Tuesday" and if Bayer can lose "aspirin" then OSI can lose "Open Source," and I honestly don't care. Words mean what people use them to mean. Having access to the source is a valid and extremely reasonable interpretation of the words "Open source".

I am not calling OSI a bad faith actor, but I am calling you one. Being unwilling to recognize that it is possible to confuse these meanings simply through plain literacy isn't only inane, but delusional. The reason people like me get so upset/frustrated about this is because it is like trying to prove to someone that the sky exists. We can see it, it is right there. Being obstinate isn't doing you any good. Saying I'm tricking you or there's a witch hunt isn't helping you either. Even if there was a grand conspiracy, as you have suggested, it would still be reasonable to call it the sky. The conspiracy wouldn't fucking work if it wasn't. So even that premise doesn't make a lick of sense.

Open a dictionary and talk to some people.

[0] (in fairness, you have to click the thesaurus for available, but it is under "as in public" which is exactly what we're talking about) whhttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open

[kiba]

Dictionaries/thesaurus just describe how words are used or were used by someone. It doesn't prescribe the correct usage of words.

The issue is that open source is a clear technical term that has a certain usage within the community. This caused confusion, especially since that is a specific definition that I grew up with, and existed before I was even born.

Calling it 'source available' caused none of the confusion.

[cttet]

'source available' also implies the case the source is only available upon request. e.g. Microsoft provided the full source code of Office to China, it is also "source available".

[memefrog]

Open source isn't a literal term. It doesn't mean "the source is open". That isn't how the English language works. It is a compound term with its own meaning just like any other.

[cttet]

So the questionis: how to determine the meaning of the words?

A. If you mean that there is some authority that can do that, what authority other than a dictionary?(not rhetorical question)

Alternatively, B. if you mean that there shouldn't be any authority that can define the meaning of the word. In this way you can't stop people to understand it as it's literal meaning and blame them.

[scrollaway]

> It doesn't matter one whit whether people can "pay the bills". It's totally irrelevant to the discussion. If you can't make money making open source software, then go get a job.

What a terrible fucking take.

First of all yes it matters. OSS developers not being able to pay their bills despite maintaining software used by trillion dollar corps has been in the news several times. It’s an ongoing issue and talked about a lot.

Second, “go get a job” is essentially “stop doing open source”. As in “I would rather have you write closed source software than source available/open core”.

This isn’t your decision to take. This isn’t your life to live. And this isn’t your culture to dictate.

Also, you live in a bubble if you think the majority of people give a crap about the OSI definition. I say this as someone who does give a crap (though not that big of one).

[kiba]

We should absolutely be finding business models that work for open source but not compromising the ethic of it, like open core.

It probably just won't make a ridiculous amount of money for open source developers. It's the tradeoff you have to make when deciding to write open source or proprietary software.

[godelski]

> We should absolutely be finding business models that work for open source but not compromising the ethic of it

I don't think anyone is arguing this. We're only arguing that "Source Available" is an extremely reasonable interpretation of the words "Open Source."

And I'll be honest, I don't see much of a difference between a Common Clause License and MIT. For the average person, they are functionally equivalent. I don't see this as a big deviation from the original ethics and goals but rather than it is an update because bad actors abused the openness.

[scrollaway]

Sure but I honestly disagree that open core compromises the ethics of open sourse.

It's just pragmatic. People are into open source for different reasons. I've been in it for almost two decades and it was always for the the benefits for learning, hackability, transparency, future-proofing, etc etc. All aspects which are perfectly preserved by open core.