Access does not mean open source. Open source = OSI and what I think GP meant. And I hold the sentiment that government funded development should be open source.
For government work, I care about OSI, not if people can just see and not legally change, contribute, and redistribute.
I think government should fund global goods and want to be precise in my language. So when I say “open source” I specifically mean OSI-licensed stuff.
No matter. One entity doesn't get to unilaterally redefine a century old term. You claim you want precision, well then specify OSI, a subset of open source.
(And yes, the licenses it approves are indeed a subset.)
Using precise language is useful for building software (and in general life).
I like that OSI exists and helps people understand a specific and desired definition for open source.
There’s a lot of thought on this topic by really smart and skilled people. The aspects of open source that I think are most important are captured in OSI.
For me, I don’t care if I can see the source, if it’s not free and usable. I can decompile code and patch for myself without a license. And I can pay for code in escrow.
But what’s important is that I can modify and redistribute. And that I can be part of a virtuous community creating things together.
> I don't want my missiles to not have code I cannot edit, and stepping back from the top secret sphere, tangential I am appalled at how crappy car firmwares are closed source.
I read that as that whoever's missiles they are should have full visibility and control of their code; I am assuming that "my missiles" means the government, not that the poster personally owns missiles.
From where I sit, I find it absurd that everything we use isn't open source. Again, not free, but the code given to purchasers.
You don't need closed source to protect IP, and the proof is in all of these API lawsuits, and copyright law.
I don't want my missiles to not have code I cannot edit, and stepping back from the top secret sphere, tangential I am appalled at how crappy car firmwares are closed source.
In the old days, a country's national transport agencies could look at evey linkage, every rod, every part of a car design.
Now 90% of the design is hidden. And with electric cars, it's even more firmware.
And the idea that OTA updates are a thing for cars. The madness. The absolute madness.
How much do you want to bet that charging firmwares are remotely updatable?
Now imagine that 9am on Monday, every electric car explodes?
Even today, that would mean an immense number of houses on fire. How could the fire department handle it?
And how could it be handled as the fires spread? And what if lots of other infra goes up?
And that's today. What about when 90% of transportationn is electric? Even if not a single house or building burned, or person was hurt, how would you replace all those buses, trucks, delivery vehicles, and cars? As COVID showed us, you cannot ramp up and down overnight.
And what if it happened to all our allies? Would they still sell part to us?
What of all the tractors are electric, and we miss corn and wheat planting season?
My point in this tangent is... no one is even looking at the important bits. And to reiterate, how much do you want to bet charging firmwares are remotely updated? Really, they should be air gapped from the entire rest of the car.
Letting potential hackers have access in this way, is just plain lazy and reckless.