I thought open source just meant the source code was open to view. Seems like letting just anyone submit code would inevitably lead to a tragedy of the commons without some serious controls in place.
you’re right, in fact there are some open source projects that simply release the source code for each release of the program and develop in private, or simply not accept contributions while having their code repository and development process publicly available. (for example, sqlite)
however, there’s a lot more open source projects that are “made by the community” by accepting contributions from people outside the development team. the main example would ofc be the linux kernel. the changes proposed don’t get immediately included, they’re reviewed and gets merged later on.
That approach is known as “source available”, projects following that won’t clear the definition of FOSS (Free and Open Source Software)
Edit- FOSS projects also do not need to accept any contributions, but people are free to fork the code and do as they wish with it.
Theoretically, AI bros should fork Godot and get started on their own version that will certainly accelerate quickly beyond the main project. Surely. (/s)
Not quite correct. The GPL (any other free software license I’m aware of) doesn’t require you to accept changes from anyway. You can develop a piece of software and release it under the GPL without accepting public pull requests.
Free software licenses protect your rights to do certain things with the source code (the distinction from ‘source available’ software being exactly what is explicitly protected), but it doesn’t require you to accept or entertain changes from anyone who wants to make them–essentially you can force them to fork the project in those cases.
Yeah you’re actually right, I misinterpreted “contributions” as modifications. The shiny Open Source label should be applicable to any code that can be viewed, modified and redistributed freely. Even if the original project doesn’t accept community PRs, it must be able to be forked - potentially by a party that would welcome public submissions to their fork.
There are usually guidelines and maintainers that are in control of the project althat do control these things. That system has worked pretty alright traditionally, but it’s become more cumbersome now that anyone can generate garbage and basically automate “contributions.”
It means that real contributions get drowned out in the noise and the maintainers that have the final say in if a PR gets accepted or not get overworked.
I thought open source just meant the source code was open to view. Seems like letting just anyone submit code would inevitably lead to a tragedy of the commons without some serious controls in place.
you’re right, in fact there are some open source projects that simply release the source code for each release of the program and develop in private, or simply not accept contributions while having their code repository and development process publicly available. (for example, sqlite)
however, there’s a lot more open source projects that are “made by the community” by accepting contributions from people outside the development team. the main example would ofc be the linux kernel. the changes proposed don’t get immediately included, they’re reviewed and gets merged later on.
i recommend reading this page for more details. https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/1285/can-anyone-contribute-to-an-open-source-project
That approach is known as “source available”, projects following that won’t clear the definition of FOSS (Free and Open Source Software)
Edit- FOSS projects also do not need to accept any contributions, but people are free to fork the code and do as they wish with it.
Theoretically, AI bros should fork Godot and get started on their own version that will certainly accelerate quickly beyond the main project. Surely. (/s)
OTOH, just to clear that up, a FOSS project doesn’t “have” to accept code from anyone else, but anyone else can copy the code and modify as they like.
Not quite correct. The GPL (any other free software license I’m aware of) doesn’t require you to accept changes from anyway. You can develop a piece of software and release it under the GPL without accepting public pull requests.
Free software licenses protect your rights to do certain things with the source code (the distinction from ‘source available’ software being exactly what is explicitly protected), but it doesn’t require you to accept or entertain changes from anyone who wants to make them–essentially you can force them to fork the project in those cases.
Yeah you’re actually right, I misinterpreted “contributions” as modifications. The shiny Open Source label should be applicable to any code that can be viewed, modified and redistributed freely. Even if the original project doesn’t accept community PRs, it must be able to be forked - potentially by a party that would welcome public submissions to their fork.
There are usually guidelines and maintainers that are in control of the project althat do control these things. That system has worked pretty alright traditionally, but it’s become more cumbersome now that anyone can generate garbage and basically automate “contributions.”
It means that real contributions get drowned out in the noise and the maintainers that have the final say in if a PR gets accepted or not get overworked.
It’s bad for everyone.