Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by icebraining 4425 days ago
If it doesn't have the source available along with the binaries, it's not open source, regardless of their good intentions.
1 comments

Afaict that's not technically correct. For example the GPL doesn't require that you provide the source code up-front, it's enough if you provide it when asked for. Which seems to be what the epic folks do.
From the Open Source Definition (http://opensource.org/osd)

    2. Source Code
    The program must include source code, and must allow 
    distribution in source code as well as compiled form. 
    Where some form of a product is not distributed with 
    source code, there must be a well-publicized means of
    obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable 
    reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the 
    Internet without charge. The source code must be the 
    preferred form in which a programmer would modify the 
    program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not 
    allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a 
    preprocessor or translator are not allowed.
So it really depends on your interpretation of "well-publicized means of obtaining the source code". I don't think I would label a "send us an email and (maybe) we'll give you the source or the patches) as Open Source, mostly because if a company doesn't already have their source in the open, they don't want it in the open, doesn't matter what they write on their site.