> Agreed. But they're all different. There isn't an accepted defintiion of open source even when it comes to software; there is an accepted set of broad principles.
Agreed, but are we splitting hairs here and is it relevant to the claim made earlier?
> (The way open source software, today, generally means source available, not FOSS.)
Do any of these principles or definitions from these orgs agree/disagree with that?
My hypothesis is that they generally would go against that belief and instead argue that open source is different from source available. But I haven't looked specifically to confirm if that's true or not, just a guess.
Re:Open Source AI Is the Path Forward
by JumpCrisscross on Tuesday July 23, 2024 @01:26PM
(#41048600)
> are we splitting hairs here and is it relevant to the claim made earlier?
I don't think so. Take the Swiss definition. Source on request, not even available. Yet being branded and accepted as open source.
(To be clear, the Swiss example favours FOSS. But it also permits source on request and bundles them together under the same label.)
Was on the HN front page earlier [1][2]. The definition comes strikingly close to source on request with no use restrictions.
> all these definitions have at least some points in common
Agreed. But they're all different. There isn't an accepted defintiion of open source even when it comes to software; there is an accepted set of broad principles.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41047172
[2] https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/open-source-observato...