What does it mean to be open source? \ stacker news ~opensource

pull down to refresh

3996 sats \ 13 comments \ @dk 19 Dec 2023 opensource

zaps forwarded to @moneyball (100%)

What does it mean to be open source? When I first got involved with open source bitcoin in 2017, I thought this was a simple question. However, it is far more nuanced that I rarely see discussed. There are at least 9 different gradations ... am I missing any?

Source available. This one is straight forward.
Permissive license. Does the license restrict commercial use or is it free open source like MIT License?
Working in the open. That is, does a team work for months or years in private only to publish code for major releases? Or are issues and PRs in a public tracker with public discussion on a daily basis?
General vs. specific design. Did the team that created the software design it with only their specific application in mind? Or did they design it general enough to accommodate many types of future users?
Supporting external contribution. Does the core team prioritize and review external contributors PRs?
Recruiting external contributors. Does the core team embrace and champion new contributors who aren't affiliated with the core team's organization?
Self-sufficient funding. Does the core team proactively seek external funding sources for development of the project so that the project can survive even if the founding entity abandons it?
External maintainers. Does the core team attempt to grow external contributors into maintainers and ultimately relinquish some power over the direction of the project?
Public good mindset. Does the project's culture allow it to shift from what might initially start as a company project to ultimately a public good?

view all related items

265 sats \ 0 replies \ @TwoLargePizzas 19 Dec 2023

I ran an open source project for years.

A lot of people equate open source with being free (as in cost) but there's also free (as in freedom). It's useful to distinguish these two concepts.

Gratis :- without charge Libre :- having freedom

There's a lot of misconceptions about why people write open source software in the first place.

Sometimes it's about transparency (to see the code).
Sometimes it's about needing help (to write the code)
Sometimes it's about teaching (to show the code)
Sometimes it's about distribution (to share the code)
Sometimes it's about marketing (to get noticed)

Or of course it can be any mix of the above or something I didn't even think about. Usually the license will give you a hint as to which.

Personally I think transparency is the most valuable. I have no problem paying for software but all other things being equal I'd rather pick open source software simply because I can look at the code and see what it does even if I never want or need to change it.

301 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 19 Dec 2023

Good post. One question might be missing:

Are the builds reproducible?

What if the software is a website like SN?

How can users trust that the code in the repository is the code that is running on SN?

110 sats \ 0 replies \ @moneyball fwd 19 Dec 2023

Agree reproducible builds should be added to the list of best practices.

There are ways to use HSMs to allow users to verify server-side builds matches the open source code, although I think only conceptually. Would love to see this done in practice so we can learn from it.

126 sats \ 1 reply \ @0xIlmari 19 Dec 2023

I'd like to partially contend 3. While Satoshi did announce his project in advance, he only released the source code once a viable product was ready.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @moneyball fwd 19 Dec 2023

Sure working in open could apply pre-initial launch or post-initial launch. I think the latter is more important for a sustainable project that serves as a public good.

116 sats \ 1 reply \ @beorange 19 Dec 2023

As far as I can tell, this is the definition and requirements: https://opensource.org/osd/

Of course you have a stricter version in the form of Free/Libre Software.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @pretyflaco 12 Jan

Of course you have a stricter version in the form of Free/Libre Software.

This is false. Free Software and Open Source are just two words for the same thing. This is not just my opinion - it's coming from Bruce Perens - the founder of the OSI. https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/02/msg01641.html

137 sats \ 0 replies \ @moneyball fwd 19 Dec 2023

An important addendum: Based on early feedback, allow me to clarify. I'm not suggesting redefining open source. A better way to frame it is open source best practices.

41 sats \ 0 replies \ @ladyluck 20 Dec 2023

Access and contribution to the project is accessible by anyone

135 sats \ 0 replies \ @037447d9ca 19 Dec 2023

As laid out by the FSF in 1986:

The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.