> Unreal Engine 4 is open source
Another small mistake here as well. The source is available to read and modify under license but it’s not open source
Another small mistake here as well. The source is available to read and modify under license but it’s not open source
You are correct that it isn't Open Source as defined by the Open Source Initiative, nor does it use an Open Source Initiative Approved License.
None of that information, however, is helpful to the author or really changes anything about the article.
If an important distinction like this is fading from our language, it's probably evidence that newer members of the community haven't been fully educated on the implications of software licensing terms, and if that's the case we should focus on improving that education, not resign ourselves to important knowledge being lost by the community.
For instance, if you learned that young people were not aware of the dangers of exposure to lead, you would not throw up your hands and say: "I guess we'll just start using lead pipes again". You would make an effort to pass on that knowledge.
I agree with your position. Open Source is not a meaninglessly unclear term, it is a precise term of art. It makes good sense to resist efforts to turn it into a meaningless marketing term like premium.
Some people point out that the term isn't trademarked. That doesn't matter. That isn't how terms of art work.
Even as a non-latin speaking person I can identify the difference between those types of "free".
Or, alternatively "Free as in Freedom", which is another phrase I've heard coming from the FSF.
As in, "hey come to the seminar with me on Thursday: there's pizza and free beer."
Free as in beer is used in contrast with Free as in freedom, and refers to something made available free of charge.
It's not really a "everyone has a right to an opinion" type of situation.
You can go on and support the dilution of the term, just remember when the software development culture has another turn to the worst, you had been a part of the problem.
The official definition of “open source software” [..] agrees with our definition in most cases. 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. [..] Since the obvious meaning for “open source” is not the meaning that its advocates intend, the result is that most people misunderstand the term.
"Open" is clear, widely accepted by the community including businesses, and is defended by the Open Source Initiative (think of them what you will, they do a good job of keeping that definition true, by doing things such as approving licenses).
"Open" has also been extended to other areas, such as "open science" (which does not refer to science for which a paper is available, but to actual reusable science).
I don't see any problem with "open", other than the fact RMS doesn't like it.
That meaning predates the use of "open" to describe software, hence why "open source" isn't that great of a term for something truly new. It co-opts the much older term "open source" which means freely available through non-protected sources. Like, in the intelligence services "open sources" has meant non-classified, non-restricted sources. There's a similar meaning in journalism.
Also how would you actually call software where the source is open but does not fulfill the osi criteria?
Right, which is further evidence against the assertion that '"open source" means absolutely nothing'.
> Also how would you actually call software where the source is open but does not fulfill the osi criteria?
I tend to use the term "transparent software". Goes hand-in-hand with my catchphrase[0] 'round these parts. Basically: if I can see the source code (and therefore can independently audit it, or hire someone to do so), then it's transparent and can (potentially) be trusted, even if the license infringes on my freedoms around that source code (modification, redistribution, etc.).
----
[0]: "transparency is a dependency of trust": https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...