It would be "source available", if anything, not "open source".

> An open-source license is a type of license for computer software and other products that allows the source code, blueprint or design to be used, modified or shared (with or without modification) under defined terms and conditions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

Companies have been really abusing what open source means- claiming something is "open source" cause they share the code and then having a license that says you can't use any part of it in any way.

Similarly if you ever use that software or depending on where you downloaded it from, you might have agreed not to decompile or read the source code. Using that code is a gamble.

▲

mkatx an hour ago | parent | next [-]

So instead of reverse engineering.. an llm/agent/whatever could simply produce custom apps for everyone, simply implementing the features an individual might want. A more viable path?

▲

DrNosferatu 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

But, for example, isn't Cannonball (SEGA Outrun source port) open source?

https://github.com/djyt/cannonball

	▲	jasonjmcghee 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No it is not. There is no license in that repository. Relevant: https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/82431 > When you make a creative work (which includes code), the work is under exclusive copyright by default. Unless you include a license that specifies otherwise, nobody else can copy, distribute, or modify your work without being at risk of take-downs, shake-downs, or litigation. Once the work has other contributors (each a copyright holder), “nobody” starts including you. https://choosealicense.com/no-permission/

▲

sa1 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

But clean room reverse engineered code can have its own license, no?

	▲	vunderba an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		In fact, the story of how Atari tried to circumvent the lockout chip on the original NES is a good example of this. They had gotten surprisingly close to a complete decompilation, but then they tried to request a copy of the source code from the copyright office citing that they needed it as a result of ongoing unrelated litigation with Nintendo. Later on this killed them in court.
	▲	simonw 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yeah, I think it can. I'm reminded of the thing in the 80s when Compaq reverse engineered and reimplemented the IBM BIOS by having one team decompile it and write a spec which they handed to a separate team who built a new implementation based on the spec. I expect that for games the more important piece will be the art assets - like how the Quake game engine was open source but you still needed to buy a copy of the game in order to use the textures.

▲

yieldcrv 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Open source never meant free to begin with and was never software specific, that’s a colloquialism and I’d love to say “language evolves” in favor of the software community’s use but open source is used in other still similar contexts, specifically legal and public policy ones

FOSS specifically means/meant free and open source software, the free and software words are there for a reason

so we don’t need another distinction like “source available” that people need to understand to convey an already shared concept

yes, companies abuse their community’s interest in something by blending open source legal term as a marketing term

▲

viraptor 38 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

This is not a space for "language evolves". Open source has very specific definitions and the distinctions there matter for legal purposes https://opensource.org/licenses

	▲	yieldcrv 27 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		the software community is the one trying to evolve the language in favor of this software license specific use case

▲

jasonjmcghee 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Whether or not something is "free" is a separate matter and subject to how the software is licensed. If there is no license it is, by definition "source available", not open source. "source available" is not some new distinction I'm making up.

See my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46175760