new | show | ask | jobs Github

cgfjtynzdrfht 4 hours ago

It's "source available" [1], not open source [2].

Words have meaning and all that.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software

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

▲

nothrabannosir 18 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> Words have meaning and all that.

Ironic put down when “open source” consists of two words which have meaning, but somehow doesn’t mean that when combined into one phrase.

Same with free software, in a way.

Programmers really are terrible at naming things.

▲

geokon 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

cant blame him. We're in a bit of a bananas situation where open source isnt the antonym of closed source

▲

jefftk an hour ago | parent [-]

This isn't that uncommon:

* If a country doesn't have "closed borders" then many foreigners can visit if they follow certain rules around visas, purpose, and length of stay. If instead anyone can enter and live there with minimal restrictions we say it has "open borders".

* If a journal isn't "closed access" it is free to read. If you additionally have permissions to redistribute, reuse, etc then it's "open access".

* If an organization doesn't practice "closed meetings" then outsiders can attend meetings to observe. If it additionally provides advance notice, allows public attendance without permission, and records or publishes minutes, then it has “open meetings.”

* A club that doesn't have "closed membership" is open to admitting members. Anyone can join provided they meet relevant criteria (if any) then it's "open membership".

EDIT: expanded this into a post: https://www.jefftk.com/p/open-source-is-a-normal-term

	▲	denotational an hour ago \| parent [-]
		* A set that isn't open isn't (necessarily) closed. * A set that is open can also be closed.