this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2024
58 points (70.4% liked)

Open Source

30221 readers
200 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
58
Is it appropriate for someone to be a mod here when they don't understand open source, and insult users in the community? (programming.dev)
submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
52 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

https://lemmy.ml/post/13864821

I'd understand if they were a random user, but a mod should already have at least some understanding about a community's topic.

But worse to me are their comments in that post calling the people responding "childish trolls in this community". I do not think that this is appropriate for a moderator.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 20 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Open source doesn't mean foss.

I think people being such zealots about getting paid is actually a huge problem with the open source community.

Giant corporations should absolutely pay to use these projects that are often labours of love done in spare time.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The purists and the zealots are the worst part of any community. If the real source (aka not obfuscated) is openly available with no access restrictions like "send me an email to get the source code", then it's opensource in my book. "Free" and "Libre" are just additional attributes for a subclass of opensource.

class Opensource {}
interface IsFree {}
interface IsLibre {}

class FOSS extends Opensource implements IsFree {}
class FLOSS extends Opensource implements IsFree, IsLibre {}

It's really simple.

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

[–] [email protected] -3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

@onlinepersona soooo.. any non-obfuscated javascript is open-source according to you? That doesn't make much sense.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

How does it not make sense?

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

@onlinepersona Wait, you really think any non-obfuscated javascript code is open-source?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

It's not open-source without the license. I think they may be confusing source available with open source.

In the case of JavaScript, obfuscation turns source code into a compilation result for performance and "security" reasons. It removes unused tokens, comments, spaces, newlines, etc. to reduce the data transfer size.

So, by definition, non-obfuscated code is source code, as it is the code the compiled or built product originates from. However, most sites on the web don't ship source code, only minified and obfuscated code.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Wait... you think somebody's minified JS committed to a repo is opensource? 😅

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

@onlinepersona Are you ok? You wrote that in your book any non-obfuscated code is open-source. But on the internet, any javascript is sent to the browser as text, so as long as the javascript is non-obfuscated (according to your definition), then it fits your statement about being open-source. But that would mean you consider many proprietary codes as being open-source, which is simply wrong. Open-source is a license, it comes with rights and obligations. It can't be just about being readable.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Why wouldn't it be opensource. It's right there in the name: the source is open.

You not being able to freely redistribute it means it a restrictive license, but it's opensource. I can look at it, get inspired by the solution, and write another one or a similar one and put another license on it. And if I don't care about the license, it can just be copied and redistributed 🤷

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

[–] [email protected] -5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

@onlinepersona 🤦‍♂️ ok, that explains everything...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

If you think copyright is great, good for you 👍

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The license you're attaching to your comments uses copyright to restrict commercial use. Are you okay with any company ignoring your license because you've posted it in the open?

The term source-available is exactly what you should be using instead of open-source, as the latter has been defined differently for decades.

The only instances I've seen people using the term open-source literally has been companies who wanted to benefit from positive connotations of open-source, while using a commercial source-available license which restricts many freedoms.

Another comment: https://linkage.ds8.zone/comment/1105950

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You're not making much of an argument against me. I wish there were no copyright, no patents, no closed-source, no "trade secrets", none of that. But I live in the real world, not some hedonistic, communist, kopimist fantasy.

Copyright exists in this world and if it can maybe bring trouble to one org reaping the benefits of the commons without giving back, I'll gladly use it. Orgs treat copyright like bumberstickers and regularly ignore that (meaning anything) which has the low chance of being enforced or have significant monetary repercussions, so I do the same.

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Yes, I've no problem with your position on copyright and many institutions do many bad things. My issue js with misuse of terms with a fixed meaning, i.e. open-source. Having different people use a single term in multiple ways makes it so much more difficult to understand each other and enables bad actors to rile people up against each other.

A tame example is "stable" Linux distros, where "stable"can mean package versions stay the same (besides bug fixes), and then people come and say their Arch Linux never broke, so it too is "stable".

Why wouldn't it be open-source. It's right there in the name: the source is open.

In the context of criticism of how copyright works I understand the above sentence, but using a well understood term differently still annoys me enough to write lengthy comments.

PS: I do hope lemmy implements a way to add copyright notices to comments like it allows for setting the language of posts. It could be implemented in a less noisy way. People who don't care about a license ignore it anyway, while people who do care would likely find it without much trouble.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

My issue js with misuse of terms with a fixed meaning, i.e. open-source. Having different people use a single term in multiple ways makes it so much more difficult to understand each other and enables bad actors to rile people up against each other.

I see 🤔 Yeah, I'm not sure where I stand on that. On one hand, language evolves, on the other there's "technically correct". Maybe it irks me that calling projects like Redis "source-available" puts it in the same category as projects that just publish their code with a "no copy, no derivative" license. To me, those are nowhere near the same.

Maybe there's another term out there?

.CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I understand what you mean. With Redis and many other database/cloud companies switching to source-available licenses, maybe the term source-available doesn't have to have such negative connotations. Open-source is also divided in permissive and copyleft licenses (e.g. BSD and GPL), both have big implications on how it can be used.

Redis and others see themselves forced to switch to a more restrictive license because of the big cloud providers, who sell services for others software, without contributing back. This change is not good, but it might be necessary. Just like GPL is more restrictive than MIT, but it's necessary to force some company to actually give back instead of only taking.

I personally don't really dislike licenses which allow for the necessary freedoms of open-source after one or two years. It's a compromise but secures the longevity of software beyond a companies success. It's way better than proprietary code.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago

Just like GPL is more restrictive than MIT, but it’s necessary to force some company to actually give back instead of only taking.

In a sense, forcing a commercial vendor to "contribute back monetarily" is a form of restriction 🤔 Not sure if forcing some other kind of contribution would be better, similar to how GPL forces licensing...

Anyway, thanks for sharing your point of view.

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

@onlinepersona Please note, by adding the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 to your comments, you are executing your copyright. Do *you* think copyright is good for you?