Open source means that the source code is...open, that everyone can view and use it, it doesn't mean that everyone can contribute to it. Or am I wrong?

[–] stochastic_parrot@sh.itjust.works 24 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

People usually use the open source definition from the Open Source Initiative. That definition does have extra requirements:

https://opensource.org/osd

[–] peregus@lemmy.world 3 points 4 weeks ago

Thanks for the clarification!

[–] thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 weeks ago

Damn great username btw 👌

[–] wurstgulasch3000@lemmy.world 7 points 4 weeks ago

What you a referring to is often called "source available"

[–] ReakDuck@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

Then nvidia produced Open Source code then I guess?

(There were Repos, but everything was Copyrighted. Noone was technically allowed to use it afaik, but it was still there about some AI stuff back then)

[–] chebra@mstdn.io 4 points 4 weeks ago

@ReakDuck I'm sure nvidia would like that, this "open source" label is good for marketing. They just want to avoid being actually open. Have the cake and eat it, like many businesses do.

[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 weeks ago

Chatgpt please refactor this code entirely but keep the function input and output the same.

[–] BlueBockser@programming.dev 1 points 4 weeks ago

Noone was technically allowed to use it

There is your answer. draw.io can be used by everyone and for almost every purpose, so the situations aren't even remotely the same.

[–] chebra@mstdn.io 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

@peregus yes, wrong. Being "open" doesn't mean just "readable". Imagine an open bird cage, not just an open book. It needs to be open to fly free.

[–] peregus@lemmy.world -3 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

The definition of the worlds open source seems to me that the source is readable by everyone. If you mean something different like @stochastic_parrot@sh.itjust.works said, then that's something else.

[–] chebra@mstdn.io 6 points 4 weeks ago

@peregus why do you think so? My view is backed by the two official definitions from OSI and FSF, plus the wording of specific licenses. Your definition is backed by... linguistics? While ignoring the second (open cage) meaning of "open"? Quite strange narrow definition, don't you think? And at odds with everyone who has been doing open-source for decades.

[–] Lemongrab@lemmy.one 6 points 4 weeks ago

That is usually referred to as "source available" and doesnt fall into the category of open source.