News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on If you can't reproduce the model then it's not open-source. Parent comment

Re:If you can't reproduce the model then it's not open-source by anothernewdude on Wednesday January 17, 2024 @06:15PM (#39034982)
You can do the same with binaries. Can modify those all you want.

Models are the compiler + makefiles. Dataset is the code.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:If you can't reproduce the model then it's not open-source by jncfhnb on Wednesday January 17, 2024 @07:33PM (#39035778)
No, it’s not the same. Yes, you can technically modify binaries, but it’s not at all the preferred way to modify the program.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:If you can't reproduce the model then it's not open-source by anothernewdude on Thursday January 18, 2024 @07:48AM (#39041069)
Congratulations. You've almost finished understanding my comment.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:If you can't reproduce the model then it's not open-source by jncfhnb on Thursday January 18, 2024 @08:41AM (#39041557)
Well you’ve failed and managed to be a dick
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:If you can't reproduce the model then it's not open-source by hn_acker on Thursday January 18, 2024 @07:17PM (#39049925)
I don't know about the OSI's open source definition [1] in general, but specific licenses might consider makefiles and build scripts to be part of the source code. (For what it's worth, the free software definition from the FSF does consider makefiles and build scripts to be part of the source code [2].)

[1] https://opensource.org/osd/

[2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

[ Parent | on HN ]