Like all language, and especially technical or domain-specific language, you need to know your audience/correspondent well enough to guess which terms are understood in the way you expect, and which ones need clarification. I fully support you, if A is worth the effort to educate. Many As are not.
For this topic, Wikipedia is a reasonable authority and makes it clear that ability to modify/distribute is a core part of open source as commonly used. Sadly, the Open Source Initiative never got a trademark on it, but has been fighting this fight since the previous milleneum.
The problem here is caused by the initial split of the "free software" term and community. A is entierly correct in that X is open source, but since it does not follow the four freedoms (to run for any purpose, to change the program, to redistribute copies, and to redistribute your modified copies) it is not free (as in freedom) software. Notice that none of the above explicity require access to the source code, but it is in practice a requirement to fulfill the freedom to make changes.
This is already one of the reasons that RMS himself opposes the open source term:
Why do people misunderstand it that way? Because that is the natural meaning of the words “open source.” But the concept for which the open source advocates sought another name was a variant of that of free software. [From Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software]
What some of these folks might actually want their projects to be, is shareware. "Sure, redistribute copies of my project, upload it to all your favorite BBSes, but don't modify it or sell it — and if you use it for anything serious, send me some money."
But yeah, if you want to make old nerds cranky at you, just call your source-available shareware project "open source". You will get flamed like a clueless luser newbie of old, for such is the way of the Net.
A: It's bizarre that "open" would be the opposite of "closed" everywhere except this one term.
The protest of topology students everywhere.
Every time someone releases code publicly under some kind of "look but don't touch" terms a similar argument plays out:
I'm generally with B: it's very useful that we have "open source" to mean a specific technical thing, and using it to mean something related gives a lot confusion about what is and is not allowed. While A is right that this is a bit confusing, it's also not unique to open vs closed source. Some other examples:
If a country doesn't have "closed borders" then many foreigners can visit if they follow certain rules around visas, purpose, and length of stay. If instead anyone can enter and live there with minimal restrictions we say it has "open borders".
If a journal isn't "closed access" it is free to read. If you additionally have specific permissions around redistribution and reuse then it's "open access".
If an organization doesn't practice "closed meetings" then outsiders can attend meetings to observe. If it additionally provides advance notice, allows public attendance without permission, and records or publishes minutes, then it has "open meetings."
If a club doesn't have "closed membership" then it's willing to consider applicants. If anyone can join who meets some criteria, it has "open membership".
This is just how language works: terms develop meanings that are not always ones you can derive simply from the meanings of their component words. I agree it can be confusing, but I also want to do my part to resist semantic drift and keep "open source" matching its useful and socially beneficial definition.
Comment via: facebook, mastodon, bluesky