Programming

19746 readers

189 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

snowe

Ategon

[email protected]

The Hippocratic License 3.0: An Ethical License for Open Source. (firstdonoharm.dev)

submitted 3 days ago by [email protected] to c/programming

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Healthy open source communities don’t just form around code, but also around shared values and a vision for how their work can improve the world. The true measure of the success of open source is its impact— how the technologies we develop are leveraged to bring about positive social, cultural, and political change.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 41 points 3 days ago (3 children)

The term "open source software" was coined specifically to refer to software licensing that recognizes a particular set of freedoms. It is not a generic term for source-available software, and never was.

One of the freedoms of open source is "no discrimination against fields of endeavor."

Calling the Hippocratic license family "open source" is inaccurate, since its entire goal is to discriminate against certain fields of endeavor.

It's better described as a sort of source-available license.

[–] Kissaki 6 points 3 days ago

It is not a generic term for source-available software, and never was.

The problem with that reasoning is that precedence and origin do not necessarily define language use after it. Language evolves. Society and communities make up new or change definitions.

Misuse of the term is evidence that it's not universally understood to be one way.

I think it's mainly because "open source" can be understood as accessible, readable source. And many people seem to intuitively understand it as such. The "free" terminology on the other hand has a more ambiguous meaning between freedom and no cost. And early on, the "freeware" terminology was established as a differentiation to "free software". "Open source" does not have such an equivalent established differentiation (like "source-available", which seems to be just not as prevalent, maybe because there have been much fewer products with that alone).

I understand the desire to correct, specifically with the established OSD. But I have to wonder if it will ever bear fruit, given these circumstances. And in consequence, whether it's even worth to point out.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago

The OSI is a US non-profit, their definition is just one opinion in the market place of ideas. If enough people think open source should mean something different the meaning of the term will change.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You’re quoting the source, but aren’t differentiating between open source and free?

C’mon, person. That was a lousy attempt at sounding smart.

[–] Dumhuvud 5 points 3 days ago

Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code.

Literally the first sentence on the linked page.