[exac]

> The aim of Open Source is not and has never been to enable reproducible software.

Okay, well just because you have the domain name "opensource.org" doesn't give you the ability to speak for the community, and the community's understanding of the term.

opensource.org is irrelevant.

[FrustratedMonky]

I agree.

"never been to enable reproducible software"

I'd say, sure "Never" is a big word.

Having open code that everyone can read and run, was partly to allow for reproducibility. In the closed world, how is anybody reproducing anything, being open does enable that.

[saurik]

The article seems to cover this nuance in the next paragraphs?

[saurik]

I mean, I've never understood "open source" to require reproducibility? That concept barely even existed as a thing people strove for until 15 years ago, a lot of software still only barely supports such, and there are tons of tradeoffs that come with it (as you effectively then also inherit your entire toolchain as vendor maintained, and a lot of projects end up making that result in awkward binaries, as almost no one reproduces entirely from a small bit of bootstrapped lisp).