Case Sneak Peek

[bzar]

Open source is not just source code, open source has been used in many contexts to reduce open source to one narrow field is just.... mistaken

 Nope, i stand my point that this is an abuse of the word, just like people who use "hacker" in any context despite its clear origins and meaning. 

There are many words to describe something developed in the Open, and you don't need to use Open Source to describe that, unless you lack vocabulary.

Do you have a source of such words you could open for us?

 

[ekianjo]

You can say:

- i release the files for the CAD model under x license or public domain.

- i open the contents of the CAD model for the benefit of xxx

- The access to the CAD model is Free under the following conditions...

- I make the CAD model public, etc...

There's no need to include "source" anywhere.

 

[PowerGod]

Nope, i stand my point that this is an abuse of the word...

You are not open-source-minded

 

[pmprog]

There's no need to include "source" anywhere

You don't need to say a lot of things, but the Open Source moniker is applied to all sorts, including hardware, as I previously linked

 

[thatgui]

No, not at all.

true, wrong thoughts on my side

 

[bzar]

There's no need to include "source" anywhere.

Do you object to a concept such as "source material" as well? That may refer to just about anything used to create just about anything. Code is just a special case of this.

Source does not imply code

Neither does Open Source

Open Source Software does

 

[WizardStan]

Nope, i stand my point that this is an abuse of the word

Source - a place, person, or thing from which something comes or can be obtained.If you're talking about abuse of words and what they mean, and not how they should be interpretted, then stick with the actual definitions.

One not-unreasonable interpretation of the definition of source can be applied to the cases, that their "origin" lies in the data which created them.

If you want to get more complex, even "code" is nothing more than data, just a series of ones and zeros that only have meaning because of how it is being interpreted.

Sticking with the definitions of words, thatgui is right: the data files constitute the source of the cases as much as pre-compiled code is the source to a binary. Opening that source is to make it available, hence "open source", by the definitions of the words, applies.

If you want to eschew pure definitions and go for intent, well thatgui is still right: the intent of "open source" is to make it possible for others to modify and rebuild things they've paid for: the source code for a driver so you can fix a problem, the source data for hardware so you can manufacture a modification.

 

[TrashyMG]

Also if the 3D models are exported to something like X3D or VRML it's essentially code at that point.

 

[ekianjo]

Sticking with the definitions of words, thatgui is right: the data files constitute the source of the cases as much as pre-compiled code is the source to a binary. Opening that source is to make it available, hence "open source", by the definitions of the words, applies.

no, because as I explained in an earlier post, the difference between data and code is that data is discontinuous yet code is structured, continuous, it has a logic. Data can be rearranged in many ways and still remain valid data no matter how you look at it. That's essentially the same difference between a 3D structure composed of polygons (data) and the algorithm that produces them out of nothing. When a modeler makes a 3D model, you don't say he is making a 3D object source, you just say he is making a model.

 

[ekianjo]

Source does not imply code Neither does Open Source Open Source Software does

I'm glad you posted these links:

The term "open source" was first proposed by a group of people in the free software movement

Do you deny the software origins ?

The point I am arguing is not that "open source" is not used outside of software, but that it's an abuse of the concept. just like "I hacked my bicycle" is a ridiculous usage of the term "hacker". A 5 years old can use words in a wrong way, it still does not make them valid.

 

[WizardStan]

difference between data and code is that data is discontinuous yet code is structured

No. Data is structured as well. It has meaning in context, just as code does. Pass a png to a graphics program and a pretty picture pops up. Code has meaning only within the confines of the compiler; passing a C file to a graphics program means nothing.But that's 100% irrelevant, it doesn't matter what definition you apply to code vs data none of it has any bearing on either the definition of the word "source" nor the intent of "open source" movement. Even if code and data are as different as apples and doorbells it doesn't change the fact that data can be a source, and "open source" can be applied to user modifiable data.

When a modeler makes a 3D model, you don't say he is making a 3D object source, you just say he is making a model.

And I wouldn't say someone who is programming is making source, I'd say they're writing code.Source means origin, it does not imply code. If it did, the term "source code" would be entirely redundant and we'd just say "source" everywhere, but we don't. Context applies and sometimes the "code" is dropped, but only if you already know you're talking about the code, otherwise you specify what type of source it is.

In the modeling community, we would call the .blend file the "source model" for the resulting .stl, and within that community if someone posted pictures of their model and was asked for "the source" it would be understood, in context, that the person was asking for this "source model".

 

[bzar]

Source does not imply code Neither does Open Source Open Source Software does

I'm glad you posted these links:

The term "open source" was first proposed by a group of people in the free software movement

Do you deny the software origins ?

The point I am arguing is not that "open source" is not used outside of software, but that it's an abuse of the concept. just like "I hacked my bicycle" is a ridiculous usage of the term "hacker". A 5 years old can use words in a wrong way, it still does not make them valid.

The fact that its origins lie in software does not imply it is not a broader concept. There are many examples in which words have changed their common meaning as a natural evolution of language. After its first appearance in software, the concept was adopted in a more generalized sense and specialized versions of the word, like open source software, were formed to refer to the specific cases in different domains. This does not make them wrong.

 

[pmprog]

When a modeler makes a 3D model, you don't say he is making a 3D object source, you just say he is making a model

Ugh, this is useless, but I'll bite. You might say "The modeller is the source of the 3D model"

 

[bzar]

When a modeler makes a 3D model, you don't say he is making a 3D object source, you just say he is making a model

Ugh, this is useless, but I'll bite. You might say "The modeller is the source of the 3D model"

Or you could say he's creating source material for creating renders of said 3D model.

EDIT: You don't say "he is making a 3D object source", because no 3D object is being created using the model. Unless you're making a 3D print of the model, in which case the model is indeed the source of the printed 3D object.

 

[_wb_]

All of you are right.

It is true though that the "Open Source" movement does originate from the pragmatical split from the "Free Software" movement, which was, at least originally, only about software.

There is no real distinction though between data, software, and hardware. That is the essential insight on which computer science is basically founded: Turing showed that there is such thing as a Universal Turing Machine, which can simulate/emulate all other machines, exactly because the behavior of hardware can be described by software, and software can be encoded as data. General purpose computers are basically just universal Turing machines.

It is also true that not just program code is something that has a "source" object, which somehow can be translated, transformed, compiled in a somewhat semantically lossy way into a "consumable" object, where distributing the latter without the former enables consumption but not (easy) modification.

• source code in C can be compiled to an executable file
• source code in JavaScript can be obfuscated and compressed into unreadable source code that is still executable
• a LaTeX source file can be processed into a PDF file
• a MIDI file can be rendered into a MP3 sound wave file
• a Gimp .XCF or Photoshop .PSD file can be exported to a PNG or JPEG file
• a 3D CAD model can be rendered into nice (2D) pictures
• and so on

In each of these cases, it makes sense to call the original file a "source file".

 

[Neelix]

Even when just dealing with data files, a file to be used as input (for anything) is still referred to as a source file.

neelix@nb-fezzik:~$ cp --help
Usage: cp [OPTION]... [-T] SOURCE DEST
or: cp [OPTION]... SOURCE... DIRECTORY
or: cp [OPTION]... -t DIRECTORY SOURCE...
Copy SOURCE to DEST, or multiple SOURCE(s) to DIRECTORY.

- Neelix

 

[codifies]

haply if someone dictates to us that the language shouldst not change but stay stagnant we shouldst choose to lay-to an older moo meet form of the language

 

[fusion_power]

I can't understand how the lower shoulder buttons works, I don't see an empty area between them and the case.

There is actualy no need for an empty area, the buttons can even overlap without interrupting each other. Because the upper trigger is more outwards than the lower trigger, at least that was the idea.

 

[Rockthesmurf]

Pandora Forum vs elsewhere

Spoiler

The Pandora Forum

A. Hey guys, I have invested something that solves famine world wide.....

B. Is it open source?

A. Here are the details about it, this should make the world such a better place, this is pretty amazing when you think about it

B. Well, maybe, probably, I don't know, but, anyway, the open source nature of it, is it really open

A. The term 'open source' doesn't really mean anything, or actually it means lots of things, they are all kind of correct. But back to the invention.

B. Invention? Or yes I remember reading something about that, but back to the open source nature of this.

Else where

A. Hey guys, I have invested something that solves famine world wide.....

B. WOW, THAT IS AMAZING. This is so good, wow, let me know more about it. How can I help? We need to make this thing a reality.

 

[Bosbeetle]

So what's te source of this confusion, lets get to the bottom of this.