I do CAD... using text! My only experience with it is programmatic in openscad
That does not mean that the CAD drawing itself is text. It is an artifact, produced from text. Using your argument you could just as easily argue that all computer code is text, and I don't think that's a useful redefinition of the word "text".
> The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, [..]
The OSI (a consortium of cloud companies who benefit when you write nonfree software for them) is not actually an authority on what the words "open source" mean, no matter how hard they try to insert themselves into that role.
Models can't be open source anyway, because they don't have source.
While most people follow the OSD criteria, there is nothing that says open source software must follow it. Nor is the OSD the only set of criteria or the only definition.
Open source means the source is available. Anything else is just political.
> Open source means the source is available. Anything else is just political.
Where was that defined so? And most of all, given the domain of information technology, who understand open source to cover cases where the source is available ie. only for reviewing?
The purpose of words and terms is so that people can exchange ideas effectively and precisely, without needing to explain the terms every time from the grounds up. Having different groups having divergent definitions on the same words is counterproductive towards that goal. In my view, labeling a release "open source" with very big limitations on how the source is used is just not about marketing, it's miscommunication.
If "open source" and "source available" (and "open weights") mean the same thing, the how come people have come up with the two terms to begin with? The difference is recognized in official contexts as well, i.e. https://web.archive.org/web/20180724032116/https://dodcio.de... (search for "source available"; unfortunately linking directly doesn't seem to work with archive.org pages).
It doesn't seem there is any benefit in using less precise terms when better-defined ones are available.
Anything more than the definition is extra. In this case it's political. That doesn't require a definition.
> The purpose of words and terms is so that people can exchange ideas effectively and precisely, without needing to explain the terms every time from the grounds up.
Do you think the 10 criteria of a non-profit's opinion effectively conveys information without needing to explain the terms from the ground up?
> Having different groups having divergent definitions on the same words is counterproductive
Right, which is why the parent is wrong. It's just an organization's opinion
> If "open source" and "source available" (and "open weights") mean the same thing
They don't mean the same thing and I never claimed they do.
> It doesn't seem there is any benefit in using less precise terms when better-defined ones are available.
Use the more precise terms then. But you can't say the definition of open source is this 10 points of criteria that people disagree about....
> Open source means the source is available. Anything else is just political.
We don't have to have this debate again. Folks have tried this rhetorical tack so often there is an entire wikipedia page[1] dedicated to explaining the difference between source available and open source...
This is an opinion article and you should realize that opinions do not make definitions.
"Conversely, Richard Stallman argues the "obvious meaning" of term "open source" is that the source code is public/accessible for inspection, without necessarily any other rights granted"
See, here's another Wikipedia article with another opinion that disagrees, and RMS is obviously an authority.
In my experience the common and accepted definition generally matches with the one the OSI uses, people generally use “shared source” or something to refer to things that don’t fit that
Still blows my mind that "binaries available" is called open source in the machine learning sphere. It's like calling Office 2007 open source (as opposed to the current browser versions) because you could run the binaries on a local machine
Apparently licenses no longer have to actually meet all 10 of the criteria listed there to count as open source. OSI says AGPLv3 is open source, for example, even though it fails #10 ("No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface").
AGPLv3 has provisions that are predicated on remote interaction over computer networks. Put modified AGPLv3 software on a computer that users interact with over RS232 terminals and you don't have to give users the source. Replace those RS232 terminals with X servers that let the users interact with the program over Ethernet and you do have to give those users the source.
The problem is that the user generally doesn't have a functioning mental model of what's actually going on
Sorry, but a professional user not having an operational understanding of the tools they're working with is called culpable negligence in any other profession. A home user not knowing how MS Word works is fine, but we're talking desk clerks whose primary task is document management, and lawyers who were explicitly tasked with data redaction for digital publication. I don't think we should excuse or normalize this level of incompetence.
I don't expect radiologists to have a good understanding of the software involved in the control loops for the equipment they operate. Why should a lawyer have to have a mental model or even understand how the pdf rendering engine works?
Have you ever had to actually react a document in acrobat pro? It's way more fiddly and easy to screw up than one would expect. Im not saying professionals shouldn't learn how to use their tools, but the UI in acrobat is so incredibly poor that I completely understand when reaction gers screwed up. Up thread there's an in complete but very extensive list of this exact thing happening over and over. Clearly there's a tools problem here. Actual life-critical systems aren't developed this way, if a plane keeps crashing due to the same failure we don't blame the pilot. Boeing tried to do that with the max, but they weren't able to successfully convince the industry that that was OK.
if a plane keeps crashing due to the same failure we don't blame the pilot
That's true, we blame the manufacturer and demand that they fix their product under threat of withdrawing the airworthiness certification. So where's the demand for Adobe to fix its software, under pain of losing their cash cow?
Yet, people here are arguing that it is perfectly OK that professionals keep working with tools that are apparently widely known to be inappropriate for their task. Why should we not blame the lawyers that authorized the use of inappropriate tooling for such a sensitive task as legal redaction of documents?
So interesting how you omit democratic representative Hortman and democratic senator Hoffman from your list, and also fail to mention that all shooters (except the last one -- affiliation unknown) were right wing.
Here in NL if confidential information about offenders leaks from court documents, it usually leads to a reduction in sentencing because the leak of classified information is weighed as part of the punishment. If the leak was proven to be intentional, it might lead to a mistrial or even acquittal. Leaking of victims' information usually only results in a groveling public apology from the Minister/Secretary of Justice du jour.
Indeed, incompetence is basically guaranteed if the organization selects for allegiance rather than competence. But I prefer to think that at least part of this was malicious compliance, because that suggests that at least some people at the FBI still have their soul.
It's also a valid consideration in the context of streaming games -- making sure that all resources for the first scene/chapter are downloaded first allows the player to begin playing while the rest of the resources are still downloading.
reply