Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Open source only requires source distribution with binary distribution, so the software can be open source and still not publicly distributed. It just means if its ever declassified, the source will be required to be distributed along with the software itself.
If the source isn't publicly available, it's not open source. It sounds like you're suggesting that the software remain closed source until some later date where it then becomes open source.
You don't get to redefine open source. It's always been about giving the source code to whoever you give the software.
Making it publicly available is an acceptable alternative to fulfill that obligation.
That is simply not true. Go read a few open source licenses and see for yourself. They only require that the source code be distributed with copies of the software itself. The code is not required to be made available to the general public.
A few references:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
https://opensource.org/osd
https://opensource.com/resources/what-open-source
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open-source
I haven't read any open source licenses, so it's possible you are correct in some technical sense, but that is not what people mean when they use the term open source.
Clearly the OP was using the common definition, or most of the post wouldn't make any sense.
The only one of your sources that directly contradicts what I am claiming is the Wikipedia line about the source being publicly available. But that is inaccurate. All the major open source licenses require source code be available to anyone who has access to the executable form of the software - not the public in general. So, if some FOSS software is available to download on the Internet without any restriction on its access, then so must the source code. Most FOSS software is distributed this way.
However, if you write software under an open source license, you are not required to share that software with anyone. The license requires you to distribute the source ALONG WITH the software. But it doesn't require you to make the software freely available to everyone, or anyone.
Tying back to my original point, which has been derailed by myriad people who refuse to read before thinking they know things, I was saying that we don't need exceptions for military software because it can be licensed as open source without that code being handed over to our enemies. But requiring it to be open source would, for example, preclude the DoD from building kill switches into the F-35s that they sell to our allies, because they'd be required to share the design of the plane's control systems along with the product - again, only to the people who receive a copy of the product - not to the public at large.