Timeline for Is Microsoft VS Code really open source?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 20, 2023 at 20:03 | comment | added | Ben Voigt | @syockit: "Open" was used to mean "extensible" long before it ever meant source available. Consider Computer Science "Open/Closed Principle", as well as "open network", "open process", "open standards" etc. So now who's "hijacking" the meaning? | |
| May 20, 2018 at 14:18 | comment | added | syockit | Ever since the term got hijacked by OSI and became the de facto definition, people who still use the old definition will always get downvoted whenever they point out the original meaning. | |
| Aug 11, 2016 at 18:44 | comment | added | apsillers♦ | I think the "hacker" comparison is very apropos. To make a somewhat strained example: if the OP asks something like, "I got a note saying that my laptop was hacked. Now my browser can't reach any website. Was my laptop itself hacked, or could there be an explanation external to my laptop itself?" Your answer is like saying, "Hacking means 'clever problem solving' so, no one seems to have hacked your laptop; I don't see any evidence of extreme cleverness," when the OP actually wants to know if the security of his laptop has been compromised. Such a response does not begin to offer an answer. | |
| Aug 11, 2016 at 18:39 | comment | added | apsillers♦ | I think it's obvious that the asker is operating under a different definition of "open source" than how you would use the term. I think it's perfectly fine to answer, "Your confusion stems from the fact that Microsoft is not using 'open source' how you expect it to be used." However, this answer fails to even communicate with the OP's question because it doesn't acknowledge the existence of another meaning of "open source" beyond "source available." That unackowledged meaning is at the core of the question, so this answer-post doesn't even approach the question. | |
| Aug 11, 2016 at 18:20 | comment | added | Reygoch | @apsillers I think this falls in same category as "hacking", another term that was hijacked by overly eager community. What are we referring to here? Hacking as in "exploit system to gain advantage / control" or "programming / building prototypes etc..."? That is a problem, because words have meanings. You could call triangle a square, but why would you do that? | |
| Aug 11, 2016 at 16:02 | comment | added | apsillers♦ | That said, finally, I don't think anyone here ever intended to claim that "open source" means "free to use as you please". The two definitions in contention here are "free to look at the source" and "compliant with the OSD" | |
| Aug 11, 2016 at 16:00 | comment | added | apsillers♦ | I think it's fair to say that "you can look at the source" might be how Microsoft is using the term "open source" here, since they do not really identify as a member of the FOSS community (though considering they make the source available under an OSI-approved license, they might in fact intend "compliant with the OSD"), but you broadly assert that "open source" doesn't mean a particular thing simply sounds wrong to me -- I suppose we can agree that means different thing to different people, and one of the most widely-held and widely-known meanings is "compliant with the OSI's OSD" | |
| Aug 11, 2016 at 15:53 | comment | added | apsillers♦ | In this community "open source" means "in compliance with the OSI's Open Source Defintion". You are free to point out that you as a speaker can ascribe any meaning to any combination of words, but I wouldn't expect that to work very well when trying to communicate ideas to other people, especially when your assertion runs directly contrary to a specific, widely-understood definition in active modern use. this community uses "source available" to refer to code whose source code is available to read but not to use under the provisions required by the OSD. | |
| Aug 11, 2016 at 15:36 | history | edited | Reygoch | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 80 characters in body
|
| Aug 11, 2016 at 12:48 | review | Low quality posts | |||
| Aug 11, 2016 at 13:59 | |||||
| Aug 11, 2016 at 11:43 | history | migrated | from stackoverflow.com (revisions) | ||
| Aug 10, 2016 at 18:10 | history | answered | Reygoch | CC BY-SA 3.0 |