I feel like we need more awareness on what is open-source and how does it work. This is NOT open source. This is, at best, source available but as there is no way to confirm that this code even runs anywhere ever it's entirely a bad faith performance to trick people, deceive regulators and stain the entire open source movement.
I sincerely hope that the main stream media does not fall for this and calls it out. It's not rocket science. It's really really simple - this is not good for anyone.
So in the end are we going by the OSI's definition of Open Source, or not? Can we make up our mind please?
Every time anyone posts here even a slightly modified Open Source license (e.g. a MIT license with an extra restriction that prevents megacorporations from using it but doesn't affect anyone else) people come out of the woodwork with their pitchforks screaming "this is not Open Source!", and insist that the Open Source Definition decides what is Open Source or not, and not to call anything which doesn't meet that definition "Open Source".
And yet here we are with a repository licensed under an actually Open Source license, and suddenly this is the most upvoted comment, and now people don't actually care about the Open Source Definition after all?
Either we go by the OSI's definition, in which case this is open source, regardless of what you think the motivations are for opening up this code, or we go by the "vibes" of whether it feels open source, in which case a modified MIT license which prohibits companies with a trillion+ market cap from using it is also open source.
You’re discussing licenses, their concern is about calling a thing that cannot function without the associated proprietary back-end “open source” for marketing.
If you want to make the argument only about the license, then you should make sure you are consistent by referencing “open source license” every single time instead. Their point is that companies use releases like this to claim they “open source” simply by releasing some useless code under an open source license.
I think if you simply replace “license” with the word “software” in those same OSI tenants, you’ll suddenly find that this “open source” project doesn’t come close to being the “open source” most people believe in. They don’t just expect the definition to stop with the license if you’re going to call something “open source” instead of “has an open source license”. OSI only provides a definition of “Open Source” with respect to licenses.
So while you may consider only a singular definition by an American organization, founded by corporations, designed to focus on clarifying and promoting the licensing aspect of open source, as the end-all be-all all-encompassing definition for the words “open source”, others argue that there are more things in software than just a license and they hope the media won’t be fooled into reporting about X offering “open source” access.
No, I'm just arguing against the blatant double standard I frequently see here on HN.
Personally I agree with you; to me this isn't open source in spirit. But I also think that a modified MIT license with an anti-megacorporation use restriction is still open source in spirit, regardless of what the Open Source Definition says.
Why is the "this is not open source even though it's OSI approved" comment here the most upvoted, while I frequently see the "this is open source even though it's not OSI approved" opinions heavily argued against and downvoted to hell?
My point is: either pick one or the other. Either the OSI is the authority on what is open source, or not. You can't have it both ways and argue either way depending on whether it's convenient to you. (And by "you" I don't mean you specifically, but people here in general.)
This is open source. You're thinking of trusted execution, audits, licenses with disclosure requirements, or signed affidavits which is a totally different thing than open source. Otherwise you could claim that just about anything isn't open source just because you're not sure what is happening on someone else's computer.
ok. This is open source of _what_? Without tying the code to a real life object the intent is absolutely meaningless. Here's the open source code for hackernews:
What does that give us? We can't run this to host our own hackernews as it's clearly not runnable. We can't really learn anything from this as it doesn't not represent any real reality. Maybe it's a fun reading exercise but that's about it.
Open source means that I can take source and run it to ensure it's trusted. Ascii characters being visible on my screen is just a nice byproduct of this goal.
> there is no way to confirm that this code even runs anywhere ever
I'm confused what this has to do with "open source" or how it affects public perception.
I agree with you that it's totally possible to lie about what is actually running in production and that sharing some code doesn't mean it's that code, but how is this a new problem?
Freedom 1 is dubiously fulfilled. I can modify it, sure, but I can't modify it when the program runs on my data for me.
Freedom 0 isn't fulfilled. I don't have the necessary input data to run the program myself.
(Of course the free software definition wasn't written for today's world, and the clarification below goes somewhat against my argument for Freedom 0. Feel free to pick this apart.)
That's a fair point, but I don't think anyone was stating it's free software. It doesn't need to meet the four freedoms to be open source, just the open source definition.
(unless, of course, the code isn't licensed under an OSI-approved license. Parent didn't actually specify which license the hypothetical not-windows-11 was being "open sourced" under, so we can't actually say for sure whether this hypothetical release is open source or not)
This design style has been adopted beyond Thinkpad line and one my favorite examples is this Shonibi by Tex mechanical keyboard[1] which even has a trackpoint!
Agree but the flaking culture is too normalized right now, at least in the west. Nothing is more demotivating than majority of people just not coming and doing it in such a non-chalant manner. It's really not fun to put all that work and people don't take the invitation seriously to the point where they jusut ghost the event.
This annoys me: at least say you're not going to make it. I don't expect you always to be free or even want to attend, but how hard is it to say 'Thanks but I can't come.'?
> I do admire that they dared to do something different and took a big gamble on it.
Why? Do you want your other tools to be _different_ for no reason at all? Do you want your drill come with sharp corners you can't touch just because it'll look different?
You're right and AFAIK it wasn't primarily developed for weight-loss either. Still, there's something not quite right with the way this band-aid would be required at non-trivial scale in the first place. I guess there really is a level of commerce that is too excessive.
Toxic community is mostly a meme myth. I have like 30k points and whatever admins were doing was well deserved as 90% of the questions were utterly impossible to help with. Most people wanted free help and couldn't even bother to put in 5 minutes of work.
Happy winter solstice! I used to like Christmas but current version of geopolitics and christo fascists really nerfed the joy of Christmas. Maybe they'll release a patch fix by next year
as Lithuania - this is absolutely not true. Even before Soviet union the Russian empire was exterminating language to the point where there's an entire Lithuanian history chapter on Lithuanian book smugglers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian_book_smugglers
Soviet empire wasn't better either. My great grandmother who was a Lithuanian language teacher was sent to Siberian gulags _for_ teaching Lithuanian. Luckily she survived and lived to a 100 just to prove these disgusting people wrong.
I speak Russian and due to war I've completely abandoned the language and the culture. Russians not showing any resistance is a good litmus test whether culture is worth being involved with and the answer is a clear no imo.
Kinda sad as russian language is quite incredible but any sane individual must sanitize their environment for their own sake and abandoning russian culture is a perfectly reasonable take.
You mean not the level you would feel satisfied, there are plenty showing resistance, they just disappear. Very easy to judge others when you have little risk.
The ones showing resistance are leaving Russia and immigrating to other countries if they can.
You should take pity on them. They are unfortunate people who live in a dictatorship. Russians who tried to protest were arrested and taken in unknown direction by authorities.
Ahem. The Baltics got independence when the Soviet regime collapsed. With all due respect to the struggle of anyone who opposed this regime while it existed, attributing the collapse of the Soviet Empire to the resistance in the Baltics is a bit too much. It was mostly driven my processes internal to Russia itself.
Hence, the weak spot in Russia‘s age old decrying of „NATO-encroachment“: It is Russia‘s neighboring countries themselves that immediately sought NATO-membership
Ah yes all the freedom fighters and culture preservationists had zero impact in securing Lithuania's freedom - what an incredibly dumb, disrespectful and frankly depressing take.
depressing - certainly, disrespectful - perhaps, but dumb? if instead of Gorbachev there had been another Stalin (or the current version of Putin), the empire would have endured that period of turbulence intact, and you would still be part of it.
also, the provinces that didn't fight for independence - Kazakhstan, for example - had got it anyway, whether they wanted it or not at the time.
No your logic is fundamentally flawed because it assumes a job has to reach 100% completion to have an effect. What if soviet empire collapsed precisely because the resistance was too costly.
In Lithuania in particular sabotage was a constant reality of the country for bigger chunk of a century. People were breaking the empire not only via outside resistance and cultural identity preservation but also by sabotaging soviet operations in daily activities. The empire fundamentally became unsustainable and collapsed under it's own weight and no new glorious leader could have saved it.
So whether Lithuanians are free because of their own efforts or because it just so happens that soviet empire collapsed is a fundamentally flawed question as these two things are not only correlating but are causal as well.
You're are feeding into a myth of unbreakable ussr and belittling efforts of former member states.
In any colonizer's strategy, this tactic achieves following goals
1. Instills fear, and demotivates and fragments resistance
2. Internalizes inferiority into a colonized nation
I might've been too hasty assuming you are doing this on purpose. But otoh, saying Kazakhstan is independent... that's rich. The moment Kazakh government thinks about denouncing russian as official language, putin will send a new government. Well, maybe not now, as his resources are strained.
Point is: Kazakhstan is far from independent, and Baltic states have done a lot to gain their true independence.
>otoh, saying Kazakhstan is independent... that's rich.
Kazakhstan is dependent on Russia and there is massive corruption, but for the most part it is independent. Just as independent as any other country with massive corruption.
Also, Russian speaking non native-Kazahk people are not treated so nicely there.
Young Kazakh people indeed started questioning the state of things. And I celebrate that.
At the same time, russia has huge influence over the country. Yes, corruption is exactly how russian influence is usually maintained.
That doesn't contradict my claim, however.
>saying Kazakhstan is independent... that's rich. The moment Kazakh government thinks about denouncing russian as official language, putin will send a new government
at the time of the empire's collapse, Putin was essentially a nobody. Yeltsin and the oligarchs didn't really give a fuck about Kazakhstan, Ukraine, the Baltics, and the rest. they were truly and unconditionally independent, and Russia, given its humiliating defeat in Chechnya, couldn't do shit about it even if it wanted to (which it didn't).
Oh, they gave a lot of fucks.
They ensured russian language has a special status in Ukrainian constitution, for example, despite freedom of speech and non-discrimination were already there.
They ensured the presidential candidate with strong nationalistic views, arguing for severing ties with russia, won't make it to elections.
They financed political parties pulling Ukraine back to russia.
There might've been a temporary loss of russian grip on Ukraine in those turbulent times, but that was just a tiny blip on the scale of whole timeline
I honestly do take pity on russians but I also chose to not engage with russian culture to sanitize my own environment as it's just too ruined for any healthy engagement.
As Russian many crazy supporters of Putin and Ukraine war I met outside of Russia are foreigners speaking English. Sure it's worse among Russians but if you were serious about anti war position you would want to speak Russian more because that helps spread your position. It's not like PRC yet, people can disagree with government without being so afraid
I sincerely hope that the main stream media does not fall for this and calls it out. It's not rocket science. It's really really simple - this is not good for anyone.
reply