undefined | Better HN

0 pointscoldtea13y ago0 comments

Open source doesn't mean much when it comes to standards.

It's all about who has control of the codebase. If you need to fork or kiss Google's ass to implement changes to it, then it's not really open.

To put it better, it might still be "open source" but it's not a community or a multi-company project.

0 comments

3 comments · 2 top-level

coldteaOP13y ago· 1 in thread

>So any repositories that don't have public commits enabled are 'not really open'? A ludicrous suggestion.

WTF, have you even read my comment before answering?

I explicitly said that those: "might still be open source but it's not a community or a multi-company project".

And I never said anything about "public commits" being necessary for something being open, if by that you mean anybody to be able commit arbitrarily.

Restricted commit access is perfectly fine. What I said is not "really open" are projects tightly controlled by a company and mainly developed by its paid employees.

Those are not really open EVEN if they have publicly available source code. Nothing "ludicrous" about it.

aidos13y ago

Well, you said:

> If you need to fork or kiss Google's ass to implement changes to it, then it's not really open.

You're right - you can't be sure to get your changes added to the codebase, but that's not to say it's not open. Hey, at least the codebase is there for you to fork and enjoy. It's not totally open (maybe, we don't really know that yet - you're just assuming it won't be) - it's certainly not closed like many others however.

hahainternet13y ago

> It's all about who has control of the codebase. If you need to fork or kiss Google's ass to implement changes to it, then it's not really open.

So any repositories that don't have public commits enabled are 'not really open'? A ludicrous suggestion.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse