> You can ask all you want but that is irrelevant as to whether it is open source.
There's a pretty good definition of open source at OSI [0], point of 2 of which is (emphasis mine):
"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."
You can't bump the window on what "program" means. "Program" here doesn't mean "predictions", that's the output of the program. If you had a program that generated images, you wouldn't say that that program was the source code of the images. You would say that that program generates images and has source code.
This just isn't an open source release. It's freely released to the public, but it doesn't contain the source used to create or modify it.
> Which is some BSD PyTorch + PyTorch calling code that anyone competent in the field can implement any number of ways and is not special to this output.
> I may be wrong in the sense that the "access to source" I'm talking about may not be in the "open source" category, depending on how that is defined.
You're correct in that you're wrong :) The Open Source Definition [1] states:
>The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form.
So having access to source/'source available' would not qualify as open-source or free software. Incidentally, when Amazon announced their new game engine 'Lumberyard', which is 'source available', there were places online claiming it was open source. Of course, that wasn't the case because it's not licensed under a free or open-source license and you are restricted from sharing your modified versions.
> Sometimes it is open sourced for review purposes.
Huh? I'm not aware that it's possible to open source something without, you know, making it OSS. Am I mistaken, or are we talking about two different meanings for "open source"?
> If the source code (or at least a significant portion of it) is available under a OSI approved license then it’s Open Source.
It's the part in brackets I disagree with... If a significant portion of a piece of software is available under an OSI approved license, then a significant portion of it is open source.
It's still wrong to call the product open source, because "the product" includes integral parts that are not open source.
> This is simply not true - not all open source software is copyleft. You can have restrictive licensing regarding use and/or distribution and still be open source.
Well, of course you can adopt any definition of "open source" you want, but I'm using the OSI definition, which states:
"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."
You are referring to "source available", for which they offer the clarification:
"Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code."
> It's deliberately misleading people to ape this terminology to promote software which does not guarantee the fundamental freedoms of open source.
That may be, but the terminology chosen by OSI is easily misunderstood, exacerbating this problem. When I see "open source", I think mostly of the source and can I see it, possibly whether I am allowed to alter it for myself. Like an "open book" (hey, I can freely annotate my own copy).
Whether something is free to sell, or redistribute, or alter and redistribute always seemed like variations on what the easily inferred (even if incorrectly inferred) core meaning of open source.
Interestingly, I think the vast majority of people probably think open source means the source is visible, regardless of whether it's an OSI approved license, and regardless of whether they are happy with the license. If that's true, and common usage is at odds with OSI intention, where does that leave us? I think I could easily argue either side in that case.
Well, that presupposes that the OSD is the One True Definition of the term "Open Source"; although the OSD is widely accepted and respected, that's a rather bold claim over an English phrase.
> it's NOT OPEN SOURCE anymore
That claim doesn't seem justified at this point. It would be more accurate to say that it is not currently CERTIFIED BY THE OSI as being Open Source -- because the OSI has not yet reviewed the new license. Maybe it will turn out that it is Open Source (as per the OSD), maybe not. Until the license is properly reviewed, we simply don't know.
> Even though OSI clearly defines what "open source" means, it is sometimes (often even?) used as a synonym for "source available"
Where do they define this? In the OSI definition it doesn't mention having the source available for everyone, only that whoever has the program should be able to get the source[0]. I do believe it doesn't follow "open source" the development model where development is in the open and anyone can contribute.
>That is not the definition of open-source (or even "open source"), a common term for software the source code of which is available; it is the Open Source Definition, a copyrighted work published by The Open Source Initiative.
This is blatantly false. You will find it very difficult to find any respected authority whose definition of open source differs from the OSI's definition.
> My definition of "open source" is that the source code is publicly available. That's it.
If I defined "open source" to mean that changes the source code must be released publicly, it's going to be pretty hard for me to talk to all the other people who already use "open source" to mean something else. There is already a standard term for the source code being publicly available: "source available": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software. You're also welcome to invent and attempt to popularize any alternative term you want, but using idiosyncratic definitions makes discussion less clear.
> Just because that organization got their hands on a premium domain name doesn't mean they get to decide what that term means.
The OSI didn't just claim "opensource.org" -- the folks behind it coined (https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source...), introduced, and popularized the term "open source" over two decades ago. From the beginning they have used the same definition, which was derived from the Debian project's Free Software Guidelines.
They are not also not the only ones who use the term that way. Wikipedia has "Licenses which only permit non-commercial redistribution or modification of the source code for personal use only are generally not considered as open-source licenses" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
I think you mean the source code is available (i.e., anyone can download it), which is different from its coming with an open-source license, which is what most people mean by "open source".
"Open-source software (OSS) is computer software that is released under a license in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software and its source code to anyone and for any purpose"
The license is the key bit.
On the other hand, there's "source available" software (also on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software ), which is what your definition equates to, and I personally don't want to see confused with open source or free software.
But another important part is that the code is there, relatively freely (depending on license), for others to use as they will.
In the sense that the parent meant his comment, this is the critical component of open source that matters. To put it in classic terms: don't bite the hand that feeds you.
"That meaning, however, has completely fallen out of use."
I'm not convinced of that - in fact, I think that is a little naive.
I don't believe that the OSI definition is completely accepted by the uneducated population at large, and don't believe that the term "open source" is not used by various software companies in ways that mislead and obfuscate the OSI meaning.
I'll quote Mr Stallman:
"However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software”—and the one most people seem to think it means—is “You can look at the source code.” That criterion is much weaker than the free software definition, much weaker also than the official definition of open source. It includes many programs that are neither free nor open source."
"The term “open source” has been further stretched by its application to other activities, such as government, education, and science, where there is no such thing as source code, and where criteria for software licensing are simply not pertinent. The only thing these activities have in common is that they somehow invite people to participate. They stretch the term so far that it only means “participatory”."
I don't accept that the other meanings have completely fallen out of use.
> It's actually about the licensing of the source code and not the source code itself.
This is a big misconception. The Open Source Definition requires source code, you can't have an "open source" project that just releases binaries under the BSD license for example. The OSD (and the Debian Free Software Guidelines that the OSD is based on) is about the software and its attributes, including both the source code and the license.
> people usually expect open-source to equal free.
Open source has a specific meaning - is the Software released on an open source license. (https://opensource.org/licenses) For example if you pay enough, you get ms windows source as well - that doesn't make it "not completely open source". Your project doesn't seem to be open source at all.
There's a pretty good definition of open source at OSI [0], point of 2 of which is (emphasis mine):
"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."
You can't bump the window on what "program" means. "Program" here doesn't mean "predictions", that's the output of the program. If you had a program that generated images, you wouldn't say that that program was the source code of the images. You would say that that program generates images and has source code.
This just isn't an open source release. It's freely released to the public, but it doesn't contain the source used to create or modify it.
> Which is some BSD PyTorch + PyTorch calling code that anyone competent in the field can implement any number of ways and is not special to this output.
It then seems trivial to release it.
[0]: https://opensource.org/osd/
reply