Re: [COFF] [TUHS] 386BSD released

[Grant Taylor via COFF <coff@minnie.tuhs.org>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2858 bytes --]

On 7/15/21 7:58 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> Requiring physical presence to get patches integrated.... doesn't 
> scale.

I believe I understand the spirit of what you are saying.  However I 
have a question:

Was the need / requirement for your physical presence motivated by (a 
lack of) technology?  Or was it more an interview of you / your team to 
determine if your contributions were desired or not?  I see a huge 
difference behind raw code and the team (trust ability / intentions) 
behind the code.  May people can do work required for a job remotely, 
yet must apply and interview for said job in person.

So, what was the real gate / blocker?  Technology to accept the code? 
Or meeting / getting to know the person / representative of the people 
behind the code?

> ... that is not what most people associate with the term "Open Source" 
> today.

I think this touches on the crux of the issue for me.

Does the ability to see the source code (in and of itself) constitute a 
license to use said source code (or compilations there of)?

My opinion is that no, the ability to see the source code is not the 
same thing as a license to use said source code.  There are many 
examples where visibility of source code and licensing to use it are two 
completely independent things.

There are many freely available programs with licenses to run them which 
do not provide any access to source code.  You probably only need to 
look as far as your Downloads folder for an example of such software / 
licenses.

There are many freely available programs with licenses and source code. 
The Linux kernel is a quintessential example.

There are fewer examples of programs where you can see the source code 
but do not have a license to run said program.  I know that Microsoft 
has made (parts of) Windows source code available to various 
institutions.  I'm confident that there are other examples.

So to me, there are two circles with some overlap between them, forming 
three broad categories that software can fall into.

Closed Source / Open License
Open License / Open Source
Open Source / Closed License

I believe that many people think of "Open Source" as being the middle 
overlap where both the License and the Source are open.  This may be 
accurate more of the time than it is not.  However I think that assuming 
it to /always/ be the case is ... unsafe.

After all, look at the terminology:  Open /Source/.  Emphasis on the 
word "Source" as short for source code.  Nothing about source code in 
and of itself implies a /license/ to use it.  Sure, there is quite 
likely an ability to use the source code (if you have all of it).  But 
the ability to do something does not mean that it's proper or legal, 
much less proper, to do so.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die


[-- Attachment #1.2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4013 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 141 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
COFF mailing list
COFF@minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff