Yes, but TLDs like this increase the attack surface of the system, making it easier for bad actors to exploit bugs in networked software or craft phishing-style attacks (including more opportunities for typosquatting). While com/net/org/country only was too spartan, I see the modern TLD free-for-all as a Bad Thing.
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.
GNU zealouts (and I consider myself one) need to take a deep breath and re-think what is being said.
It *IS* accurate to say that the program and source must be free to use for all purposes the recipient wants including commercial.
This was an involved conversation that was had during the 90's and yes, "no commercial reuse allowed" licenses are not -in fact- free licenses. I might be wrong but I have the impression they are not allowed on debian cds/dvds for that reason.
> If I use a piece of software that has been obtained under the GNU GPL, am I allowed to modify the original code into a new program, then distribute and sell that new program commercially? (#GPLCommercially)
> You are allowed to sell copies of the modified program commercially, but only under the terms of the GNU GPL. Thus, for instance, you must make the source code available to the users of the program as described in the GPL, and they must be allowed to redistribute and modify it as described in the GPL.
> These requirements are the condition for including the GPL-covered code you received in a program of your own.
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/ to see all of the licenses that are generally agreed upon to be Open Source licenses.
"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"
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
All of these claims are untrue. Here is an example of open source being used to describe software in 1996. OSI was founded in 1998.
> This debate is beyond silly. It’s like arguing about what the rules of, say, Settlers of Catan
Commercial board games typically use trademark law to prevent others from changing their rules. Popular games which do not have legally protected names often do have multiple sets of rules defined by different people. e.g poker.
> All of these claims are untrue. Here is an example of open source being used to describe software in 1996.
Interesting. The attendees of the meeting on February 3rd, 1998 certainly all seem to think that they at least independently re-invented the term, so the term can’t have been very common. The meeting was held two weeks after the announcement of the release of the Netscape source code, and the announcement did not use the term.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
No it isn’t. The OSI invented the term "Open Source” as applied to software, and they get to define its meaning as what they intended.
You misread my comment. That page explains why the FSF does in fact believe that open source software does not give people the freedoms it "should" guarantee.
The freedoms that a license "should" convey is not a fact, it is an opinion. And there are more than a few valid and honest opinions that exist, even beyond the opinions of FSF/OSI/CC/UCB/USG/Apache/FAANG/whoever
How is that relevant? What does the opinion of FSF (about what a licence “should” contain) have to do what you consider to be the proper meaning of the term “Open Source”?
It is a response to your point numbered "3." above. There are honest and good-willed licenses which are not OSI, written by honest and good-willed people who disagree with OSI.
Yes, and? The FSF may disagree with the OSI on some matters, but the FSF does agree on the definition of the term “Open Source”, which was what we were discussing. Do you have a different definition of “Open Source” (as applied to software), and why should that definition take precedence over that of the definition from the OSI?
To bring it back to the point: The article claimed that “NLLB (No Language Left Behind) has been open sourced by Facebook”, which is misleading, since “open source” has a strict definition, and the license of NLLB did not qualify with the very first point in the OSI Open Source Definition. Facebook released the source code, under an open license; they could even call it a Creative Commons license, which it was. But the article can’t truthfully call it “open source”, since it isn’t.
OSIs licenses are only for software. If you open source things other than software, you’ll have to use a license that addresses those types of media. Which is what Facebook did. CC licenses are a popular way to “open source” non-software content.
You are again using the verb “open source” as a synonym for “release” or “freely license”. It is the very subject of this debate that I do not think this to be appropriate unless an OSI-compliant license it used; therefore, you can not now use it as an argument in this same debate.
The OSD applies only to open source software. It is nonsensical when applied to non-software works. You can’t release the source code for a language model because they don’t have source code.
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.
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?
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.
Building on that, how long did the AI take to draft the 77 news articles? Now ask a human to draft 77 articles in that same amount of time and see how many errors there are...
We are already awash in more articles and information than ever, and how long it takes to produce them isn't very important outside of a "quantity over quality" business model.
For this to be meaningful at all would have to presume that if the AI is faster, that making it take longer would improve its accuracy, which is almost certainly not the case.
It would however allow more accurate but slower humans to check its results for errors.
I find plausible that, in the near future, AI will be capable of generating content at a pace so high that we won't have time and resources to guarantee content accuracy and will very soon surrender to accepting blindly everything it spits out as truth. That day, anyone pulling the strings behind the AI will essentially have the perfect weapon at their disposal.
Not OP, and I don't think it directly indicates how smart you are, but it does show you are at or above some smartness threshold (i.e. smart enough to get the answer).
If you don't get the answer, you might still be above that smartness threshold, but didn't get it for some other reason (didn't have time to study, didn't sleep enough the night before, interview anxiety, etc.).
I think their point is that anecdotes are not very valuable and then gave examples of anecdotes that differ as a way to show that individual experiences / perceptions can be vastly different, which isn't at odds with their original point.
A lot of street drugs have never even had a chance to "run the gauntlet" so it's really not necessarily fair to rule them out. Which isn't to say that they _are_ effective, but we can't really rule them out just for being "street drugs".
I personally have seen the opposite problem - the friction of making small changes to "utility" libraries becomes a huge pain point for developers when you have to make changes, test locally, push to package manager, update all consumers to use the new version... It's much easier, in my experience, to just consume a class that's already in the same project / repo.
I have also experienced this pain where a company I worked for went too hard on splitting every thing into separate repos, such that updating something deep in the dependency tree becomes very painful and involves a protracted "version bump dance" on dependent repos. There's no silver bullet here.
I don't go into the code I wrote 6months ago knowing exactly what every line does, but I remember the broad strokes about what it is generally doing, where different logic will live, and it makes it much easier to jump back into code I wrote 6months ago vs code I've never seen before.
