this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
374 points (98.4% liked)

Technology

59201 readers
3053 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
  • OpenAI
  • OpenText
  • OpenVMS
  • OpenServer
  • OpenEdge
  • OpenDrive
  • etc.
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] fubo@lemmy.world 197 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Some of these names (like OpenVMS) are from before the term "open source software" was coined (which was in 1998). They refer instead to "open systems", meaning computer systems with published specifications, interoperable hardware, portable software, etc. -- things that might seem like obvious choices now, but were not in early business computing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_system_(computing)

[–] 995a3c3c3c3c2424@feddit.nl 35 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, OpenBSD predates “open source” by a few years and some people actually found the name weird at the time because there was such a strong association with “Open” being used to mean things like “controlled by an industry consortium rather than a single company”.

[–] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

There was a joke in one of the BOFH episodes (Bastard Operator from Hell for those unfamiliar, look it up if you don't know it, it's worth it) that went like this:

"So I tell him, 'you can't port Debian to a car computer, it's not an open system' ha ha ha ha"

That joke was not about the car computer.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] retiolus@lemmy.cat 4 points 1 year ago

Thak makes sense, thank you!

[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

things that might seem like obvious choices now

Not anymore.

[–] fubo@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Even a heavily proprietary system like iOS is much more of an "open system" in this sense than old mainframes. It uses standard networking protocols, supports programming languages that have published specifications, third-party hardware exists ...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 122 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The same reason that USA calls their brand of jingoism "freedom"

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 83 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

its clearly a marketing gimmick. to lend credibility to their products by stealing the goodwill associated with open source initiatives.

its a marketing trick for geeks. these people are jerks.

[–] baatliwala@lemmy.world 71 points 1 year ago (2 children)

OpenAI was supposed to make AI R&D basically open for all, but they became closed after they realised how fucking good GPT can be. It's understandable tbh but sad.

[–] PlexSheep@feddit.de 51 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They betrayed their core values. Hypocrites to me.

[–] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's what money'll do to ya.

If I was presented with billions of dollars of I went proprietary, I too would probably close source my software.

[–] Taringano@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago

In an interview Sam altman said "they realise the amount of money they needed would never come only from donations.

It's still kind of a foundation, he mentioned it in the Lex Friedman podcast.

[–] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 62 points 1 year ago

Because they can and the only ethics a company has are those imposed by laws.

[–] smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.de 55 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Also more things now call themselfs "open source" even not being like that. AnyType or Llama AI for example.

[–] Devgard@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I'm pretty sure Anytype is finally open sourcing their code after years of it being in alpha though?

[–] smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.de 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Source is available to the public under their own custom licence, but you cannot use it commercially. Server side is closed. So you just know there is no malware inside and you can propose a bugfix, that's not enough to be open source, yet they misleading call it that.

[–] gloriousspearfish@feddit.dk 16 points 1 year ago (5 children)

If you can look at the source code it is open source.

[–] MHLoppy@fedia.io 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You seem to be using the term "open source" for what is instead commonly called "source-available", which has a distinct meaning from open source.

[Source-available software] includes arrangements where the source can be viewed, and in some cases modified, but without necessarily meeting the criteria to be called open-source.

[Open-source software] is released under a license in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software and its source code to anyone and for any purpose.

edit: fixed duplicated phrasing

[–] gloriousspearfish@feddit.dk 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

No I am using the term for how it was originally used, back in the free software movement days in the 70s and 80s.

Open source means nothing more than the source beeing open for all to see. What your are describing we called Free Software or later FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) but the open source part is redundant in that acronym.

Also some started using Libre instead of Free, as Free sometimes are confused with Gratis. That is where the expression Free as in Freedom cones from.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] BURN@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Not sure why you’re being downvoted. By definition this is true.

Visible source is still open source , but it isn’t FOSS. Not everything open source is FOSS, but everything FOSS is open source.

[–] gloriousspearfish@feddit.dk 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Exactly. Also it is interesting how I am getting downvoted while you are getting upvoted - even though we are saying the same thing.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

From Wikipedia:

Open-source software (OSS) is computer software that is released under a license in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software and its source code to anyone and for any purpose.

From Open Source Initiative:

Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria: (...) https://opensource.org/osd/

AnyType is "source available". Open Source is a term exisiting for many years with already established precise meaning and messing it up makes much harm in a world where talking about computing morality is already messed up with the lack of words in public awareness, as computer software is very abstract and need proper terminology.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jack@monero.town 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

This is why "open source" is garbage. Call it libre.

[–] gloriousspearfish@feddit.dk 2 points 1 year ago

I agree, it is much more clear. I do like Free also, but it is confusing in English.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] 3l3s3@feddit.de 42 points 1 year ago

Open your wallet and fill ours

[–] ZILtoid1991@kbin.social 34 points 1 year ago

Then wait until you learn how Creative bought up OpenAL (the audio answer to OpenGL and having to work with multiple audio extensions), and made it closed source...

[–] Fades@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago

Marketing, literally NOTHING but marketing motivates this shit

[–] edgemaster72@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

(American perspective) Because companies are not only allowed to deceive the public for their benefit, it's expected and encouraged.

[–] 3arn0wl@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Pure speculation : the idea of open source sells. It's more appealing than the alternative.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Anamana@feddit.de 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean OpenAI used to be opensource with older models or?

[–] r00ty@kbin.life 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TedJ70@aussie.zone 16 points 1 year ago

Because they're OpenAssholes™

[–] Aux@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

OpenAI is used for two companies under one umbrella - OpenAI a non-profit and OpenAI a for profit companies. Basically OpenAI non-profit does research and published it publicly, then OpenAI for profit adds bells and whistles and sells it to recoup costs.

[–] VantaBrandon@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Capitalism is a hell of a drug

[–] Deebster@programming.dev 4 points 1 year ago

Reminds me of all those countries claiming to be democratic in their name like Democratic Republic of the Congo, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (aka North Korea), etc.

load more comments
view more: next ›