Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Open is Open Source Really?

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the buzzwords-and-the-companies-that-kill-them dept.

jg21 writes to tell us that several industry leaders have chimed in with a response to Nat Torkington's recent piece "Is 'Open Source' Now Completely Meaningless". In the original piece Torkington raised the question of whether the term "open source" had lost any meaning because of companies that use the label yet largly restrict user interaction. Sun's Simon Phpps chimed in by stating: "I see open source as a term relevant to the way communities function and I'd support the reunification of the terms 'Free' and 'open source' around the concept of Free software being developed in open source communities. On that basis it's not dead."

3 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Open Source means you get the code, that's it by the_womble · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Except that you don't get to define what open source means. The Open Source Initiative has that luxury. IIRC, they went to great lengths to differentiate Open Source and Free Software as two distinct entities. Open Source means you get the code and nothing more. No guarantee that you can redistribute

    Completely and utterly wrong - and you still get modded +5 insightful!

    Read the introduction to the Open Source Initiative's definition of open source - it says "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code"

    Then read the first clause. See the title "Free Redistribution"? Guess what that means. While you are about it take a look at clause 3 "Derived Works".

  2. Re:Open Source means you get the code, that's it by trifish · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Open Source means you get the code and nothing more. No guarantee that you can redistribute

    You are wrong. Find some time to read the OSI definition of Open Source:

    "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."

  3. Re:Open Source means you get the code, that's it by dpilgrim · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Except that you don't get to define what open source means. The Open Source Initiative has that luxury. IIRC, they went to great lengths to differentiate Open Source and Free Software as two distinct entities. Open Source means you get the code and nothing more. No guarantee that you can redistribute
    Please RTFM. If you're going to have an opinion, make it an informed one. From the OSI's website, this is taken from Clause 2 of the Open Source Definition:

    "The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form."

    Note that the Open Source Definition also requires that distribution of modifications in source form must be allowed.

    No, the real difference between Open Source advocates and Free Software advocates is on a philosophical level. Open Source advocates proclaim that as a software development methodology, open source offers advantages in certain contexts. No overarching moral claim is made about the software, its developers, or its consumers. Free Software advocates tend to agree with the methodological point, but go further in pronouncing that there is some sort of basic right to source code that people have. This is a moral claim, and hence not something that can be resolved as a matter of fact. You either subscribe to that moral view of the world, or you don't. Most businesses do not subscribe to that view of the world, and most open source advocates remain agnostic. Thus Open Source tends to be a more business-friendly view of the world than Free Software.