[dang]

As more and more startups are going open source, source available, open core, etc., I need to figure out how to do Launch HNs without triggering off-topic controversies around the term "open source". My problem is, there's no consensus among HN readers about what the term means.

If anyone has a suggestion about how to solve this problem in an accurate and neutral way, I'd like to hear it.

[ayewo]

I understand your frustration.

IME, HN tends to use the term open source in two senses. It can either refer to:

- the license or;

- the business model.

And we know that licenses exist on a spectrum of permissive to restrictive.

So when the community is presented with a for-profit entity in a Launch/Show HN, they tend to dwell on the 2nd sense.

If it’s a side project that’s on display, then the 1st sense kicks in.

Based on this, I’d like to offer the following colloquial interpretations for the terms you mentioned.

1. Open source: permissive (or more correctly, well-known) licenses like MIT, Apache, BSD, GPL, LGPL etc that do not prohibit commercial derivatives (or prevent cloud hyperscalers like AWS from using it).

2. Open core: our code is split into 2 parts: the open source bit (often under a permissive open source license in #1) to attract fellow devs and the closed source bit. The closed source bit is how we plan to make money.

3. Source available: we plan to make money however we see best so as insurance, our code can only be available under an obscure license that was designed to be restrictive.

So, I think what’s really happening is that labelling something “open source” will cause the community to quickly to point out that said license is restrictive.

[ayewo]

(Here is an example from another post on the frontpage where the community is engaging in the 1st sense on a side project: Show HN: Little Rat – Chrome extension monitors network calls of all extensions

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37122927 )

[dang]

Thanks! that's helpful. I've changed the wording to "open core" above.

[version_five]

OSI maintains a list of open source licenses which is as close to an industry consensus as you'll find. If a license is on that list I don't think many would say it's not open source.

https://opensource.org/licenses/

That's for software only, if it's an AI model all bets are off.

[sobkas]

First if you don't know what open source is, don't add that phrase to titles at random. Fact that it's launched with YC help doesn't actually help your case. Adding feel good phrase "open source" to benefit hand that feeds you is pathetic. Because right now damage is already done, many people saw and will associate Serra with open source, which it isn't.

Second if you are adding it, add definition you are using(not supported? then someone should implement it). Make sure that definition you are using factually describes license used. Don't use some fringe bs. as your definition, so you can crowbar it in every time you find it convenient.

[dang]

No one "knows" what the meaning of a disputed term is; it's disputed.

[nailer]

> My problem is, there's no consensus among HN readers about what the term means.

Open Source is defined here, by the people that invented the term: https://opensource.org/osd/

The vast majority of HN readers would support this over any other definition.

Anything that provides access to source but doesn't allow forks, commercial use, competition, removal of advertising, etc is 100% not open source.