7 ms·

It was open sourced, just under a non-commercial license.

by adsfoiu1 3y ago

teddyh 3y ago
Non-commercial licenses are not Open Source: https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/
- voxic11 3y ago
  > The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Its a model not a program. So that definition can't possibly apply to it no matter the license.
- kube-system 3y ago
  "open source" has a broader English meaning that predates the OSI for at least several decades. OSI does not have a trademark on "open source" because of this. This is the software licensing world's version of "a hotdog is not a sandwich"
  - morelisp 3y ago
    > "open source" has a broader English meaning that predates the OSI for at least several decades. It is also not data collected by an intelligence agency or law enforcement from public sources.
    - kube-system 3y ago
      It isn't. But those who coined it were aware of it being used for that purpose. https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source-software https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source...
  - teddyh 3y ago
    The definition of “open source” is universally agreed upon to have the OSI-defined meaning, except for some people: 1. Intelligence community people, who have long understood the term “open source” to mean a source of intelligence which is not itself secret. 2. People who, without having ever looked it up, assume it means that the source code is available for reading. These people are simply ignorant, and should be using the term “source available” instead, since it means exactly that. 3. People who want to be able to use the “open source” term for their software to gain goodwill, but don’t want to actually give all of the freedoms it should guarantee. These people are dishonest shills who try to confuse the debate in order to get away with fraudulent labeling. (Repost of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29332056 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29332056)
    - HDThoreaun 3y ago
      I disagree. You don’t get to decide what words mean. Open source means open source, that’s it. If you want it to mean something else you should’ve chosen a phrase that didn’t already have a meaning.
      - teddyh 3y ago
        Sometimes old words and terms acquire new meanings. The only meaning “Open Source” had before the OSI was the intelligence “open sources” meaning. Is this the only meaning of “Open Source” you accept? If not, what is your definition, and why should that prevail over the OSI definition?
        naniwaduni 3y ago
        Unfortunately, phrases are made of words that mean things.
        HDThoreaun 3y ago
        I accept that different people think it means different things, which makes me want to create a new phrase that doesn't already have a meaning. open software? Not sure, but communication is hard when you co-opt phrases that have intuitive meaning and try to supercede that.
        teddyh 3y ago
        Whatever meaning you have in mind, I’m pretty sure there’s already a term for it. What is the meaning that you want to express?
    - kube-system 3y ago
      > People who want to be able to use the “open source” term for their software to gain goodwill, but don’t want to actually give all of the freedoms it should guarantee. Or is "open source" just a term for "free" as in beer software that doesn't actually give people all the freedoms it should guarantee? Because that's what the FSF thinks. Different people have different ideas about what freedoms people "should" have. Nobody is being dishonest about software freedoms when the BSD-4-clause was written, CC0 or when they write licenses with 'no evil' or 'no nuclear proliferation' clauses.
  - rnd0 3y ago
    "open source" has a specific, standard useage and meaning in the software world and has had since at least 1998 and to be honest probably before. For the last 25 years, in the software field, the common usage has been the one from the OSI. Of course contrarians will disagree. Contrarians will always be contrary and may be safely ignored.
    - kube-system 3y ago
      And most people do not call a hot dog a sandwich. Yet, enough do that it is valid English.
      - teddyh 3y ago
        A lot of people confuse, say, Switzerland and Sweden, but this does not make it valid to call either by the other name. Likewise, “Open Source” has a precise definition, and people being confused does not make it less so. Of course, a lot of people are not actually confused, but are engaging disingenuously in order to dilute the term, so that they can use it for their own ends.
        kube-system 3y ago
        English isn't prescriptive. In English, if people use a word or a phrase to mean a thing, it means that thing. OSI has a widely observed technical definition, but it is not universal, and more colloquial uses of the word are recognized by linguists because they factually exist. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open-source https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open-source
        teddyh 3y ago
        It would be one thing if you made that argument about some old term, like “mountain”, or “island”; those have definitions, but the edges are fuzzy and vary, since the terms are old and saturated since prehistorical times. With “Open Source”, it’s different. The wording existed previously, yes, but only as a technical term in intelligence gathering. Applied to software, on the other hand, the term is new, created by the OSI, which gave it a strict definition from day one. People cannot have heard of the term unless it came from OSI. Any claim of deviation from the OSI meaning, then, can be simply discarded as incorrect. This debate is beyond silly. It’s like arguing about what the rules of, say, Settlers of Catan is. The rules are the official rules which come with the box; anything else is house rules or custom rules, and cannot be used in something like an official tournament. When people say that “Settlers of Catan does this thing X”, and the official rules expressly says it does not do X, they are (knowingly or not) being misleading.
jchmrt 3y ago
One of the criteria of the most often used definition of open source [0] is that the program is free to use and modify for all purposes. So a noncommercial license would not qualify as open source. This is also a requirement of the free software definition of the FSF, which is also often used to define free/open source. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition
- jbverschoor 3y ago
  "all purposes" cannot include any GPL licensed software because it clashes with certain licenses. So by that definition Linux is not Open Source. The BSD and MIT licenses
  - detaro 3y ago
    "combine specific software X with specific other software Y" is not a field of endeavor, so this argument is bullshit.
  - chomp 3y ago
    Wrong. Open Source does not have to bend the knee to whatever proprietary license you can dream up and shove into your code base. >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. Does this apply to Linux? Check. >Derived works: The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. Does this apply to Linux? Check. Please visit https://opensource.org/licenses/ https://opensource.org/licenses/ to see all of the licenses that are generally agreed upon to be Open Source licenses.
- rnd0 3y ago
tmaly 3y ago
If there was a kick starter campaign to raise funding for a model that could be used for commercial purposes, I would definitely chip in.

It was open sourced, just under a non-commercial license.

teddyh 3y ago

Non-commercial licenses are not Open Source: https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/

voxic11 3y ago
> The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Its a model not a program. So that definition can't possibly apply to it no matter the license.
kube-system 3y ago
"open source" has a broader English meaning that predates the OSI for at least several decades. OSI does not have a trademark on "open source" because of this. This is the software licensing world's version of "a hotdog is not a sandwich"
- morelisp 3y ago
  > "open source" has a broader English meaning that predates the OSI for at least several decades. It is also not data collected by an intelligence agency or law enforcement from public sources.
  - kube-system 3y ago
    It isn't. But those who coined it were aware of it being used for that purpose. https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source-software https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source...
- teddyh 3y ago
  The definition of “open source” is universally agreed upon to have the OSI-defined meaning, except for some people: 1. Intelligence community people, who have long understood the term “open source” to mean a source of intelligence which is not itself secret. 2. People who, without having ever looked it up, assume it means that the source code is available for reading. These people are simply ignorant, and should be using the term “source available” instead, since it means exactly that. 3. People who want to be able to use the “open source” term for their software to gain goodwill, but don’t want to actually give all of the freedoms it should guarantee. These people are dishonest shills who try to confuse the debate in order to get away with fraudulent labeling. (Repost of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29332056 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29332056)
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    I disagree. You don’t get to decide what words mean. Open source means open source, that’s it. If you want it to mean something else you should’ve chosen a phrase that didn’t already have a meaning.
    - teddyh 3y ago
      Sometimes old words and terms acquire new meanings. The only meaning “Open Source” had before the OSI was the intelligence “open sources” meaning. Is this the only meaning of “Open Source” you accept? If not, what is your definition, and why should that prevail over the OSI definition?
      - naniwaduni 3y ago
        Unfortunately, phrases are made of words that mean things.
      - HDThoreaun 3y ago
        I accept that different people think it means different things, which makes me want to create a new phrase that doesn't already have a meaning. open software? Not sure, but communication is hard when you co-opt phrases that have intuitive meaning and try to supercede that.
        teddyh 3y ago
        Whatever meaning you have in mind, I’m pretty sure there’s already a term for it. What is the meaning that you want to express?
  - kube-system 3y ago
    > People who want to be able to use the “open source” term for their software to gain goodwill, but don’t want to actually give all of the freedoms it should guarantee. Or is "open source" just a term for "free" as in beer software that doesn't actually give people all the freedoms it should guarantee? Because that's what the FSF thinks. Different people have different ideas about what freedoms people "should" have. Nobody is being dishonest about software freedoms when the BSD-4-clause was written, CC0 or when they write licenses with 'no evil' or 'no nuclear proliferation' clauses.
- rnd0 3y ago
  "open source" has a specific, standard useage and meaning in the software world and has had since at least 1998 and to be honest probably before. For the last 25 years, in the software field, the common usage has been the one from the OSI. Of course contrarians will disagree. Contrarians will always be contrary and may be safely ignored.
  - kube-system 3y ago
    And most people do not call a hot dog a sandwich. Yet, enough do that it is valid English.
    - teddyh 3y ago
      A lot of people confuse, say, Switzerland and Sweden, but this does not make it valid to call either by the other name. Likewise, “Open Source” has a precise definition, and people being confused does not make it less so. Of course, a lot of people are not actually confused, but are engaging disingenuously in order to dilute the term, so that they can use it for their own ends.
      - kube-system 3y ago
        English isn't prescriptive. In English, if people use a word or a phrase to mean a thing, it means that thing. OSI has a widely observed technical definition, but it is not universal, and more colloquial uses of the word are recognized by linguists because they factually exist. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open-source https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open-source
        teddyh 3y ago
        It would be one thing if you made that argument about some old term, like “mountain”, or “island”; those have definitions, but the edges are fuzzy and vary, since the terms are old and saturated since prehistorical times. With “Open Source”, it’s different. The wording existed previously, yes, but only as a technical term in intelligence gathering. Applied to software, on the other hand, the term is new, created by the OSI, which gave it a strict definition from day one. People cannot have heard of the term unless it came from OSI. Any claim of deviation from the OSI meaning, then, can be simply discarded as incorrect. This debate is beyond silly. It’s like arguing about what the rules of, say, Settlers of Catan is. The rules are the official rules which come with the box; anything else is house rules or custom rules, and cannot be used in something like an official tournament. When people say that “Settlers of Catan does this thing X”, and the official rules expressly says it does not do X, they are (knowingly or not) being misleading.

jchmrt 3y ago

One of the criteria of the most often used definition of open source [0] is that the program is free to use and modify for all purposes. So a noncommercial license would not qualify as open source. This is also a requirement of the free software definition of the FSF, which is also often used to define free/open source. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition

jbverschoor 3y ago
"all purposes" cannot include any GPL licensed software because it clashes with certain licenses. So by that definition Linux is not Open Source. The BSD and MIT licenses
- detaro 3y ago
  "combine specific software X with specific other software Y" is not a field of endeavor, so this argument is bullshit.
- chomp 3y ago
  Wrong. Open Source does not have to bend the knee to whatever proprietary license you can dream up and shove into your code base. >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. Does this apply to Linux? Check. >Derived works: The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. Does this apply to Linux? Check. Please visit https://opensource.org/licenses/ https://opensource.org/licenses/ to see all of the licenses that are generally agreed upon to be Open Source licenses.
rnd0 3y ago

tmaly 3y ago

If there was a kick starter campaign to raise funding for a model that could be used for commercial purposes, I would definitely chip in.