Open-Source Is Just That

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Definition of “Open Source” vs. Just “Open Source Code”

  • Major contention centers on the article’s claim that “open-source” need not be free/open-source (FOSS).
  • Many argue that “Open Source” (capital O/S) has a well-defined meaning per the OSI: rights to use, modify, and redistribute; mere code visibility without these rights is “source-available,” not open source.
  • Others push back, saying everyday/literal interpretation is “source that is open to read,” and that this broader usage is now common despite OSI/FSF history.
  • Several note that terms like “hot dog” or “heavy metal” show that word combinations can have specialized meanings beyond literal components.

FOSS, Free Software, and Copyleft Confusion

  • Repeated corrections that “free software” (FSF sense) and “open source” (OSI sense) largely denote the same set of licenses; FOSS is the union, not a stricter subset.
  • Some incorrectly equate “free software” with “viral”/copyleft licenses; others clarify that permissive licenses (MIT/BSD) are also free software and open source.
  • Disagreement whether FOSS implies copyleft or just emphasizes user freedoms; some view the “free software” term as politically motivated and “open source” as more pragmatic.

Licenses, Rights, and Ethics

  • Legal rights: maintainers can ignore PRs (even trivial security fixes), change licenses, or sell projects, within the terms of existing licenses and copyright.
  • Viral licenses and distributed copyright can constrain unilateral relicensing.
  • Commenters distinguish law from ethics: harassment of maintainers and exploitative license changes are seen as unethical but not prohibited by licenses.

Maintainer Obligations and User Entitlement

  • Broad agreement with the article that open source does not guarantee support, feature delivery, or timelines; users expecting “free help on demand” are seen as entitled.
  • Some object that the piece overcorrects, portraying maintainers as owing “nothing” and ignoring community labor: bug reports, docs, evangelism, unpaid code.
  • Corporate users and CLAs draw particular criticism when monetization sidelines volunteers.

Terminology Proposals and Ongoing Confusion

  • Several advocate clearer terms: “source-available” for proprietary-with-source; some suggest alternatives like FLOW (“free libre open work”).
  • Others argue that constantly redefining “open source” dilutes a long-settled consensus and mainly serves marketing or corporate agendas.