No, it’s source available but not open source. Open source requires at minimum the license to distribute modified copies. Popular open source licenses such as MIT [1] take this further:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
This makes the license transitive so that derived works are also MIT licensed.
Not quite. You need to include the MIT license text when distributing the software*, but the software you build doesn't need to also be MIT.
*: which unfortunately most users of MIT libraries do not follow as I often have an extremely difficult time finding the OSS licenses in their software distributions
MIT is not copyleft. The copyright notice must be included for those incorporated elements, but other downstream code it remains part of can be licensed however it wants.
AGPL and GPL are, on the other hand, as you describe.
Modifications can be licensed differently but that takes extra work. If I release a project with the MIT license at the top of each file and you download my project and make a 1-line change which you then redistribute, you need to explicitly mark that line as having a different license from the rest of the file otherwise it could be interpreted as also being MIT licensed.
You also could not legally remove the MIT license from those files and distribute with all rights reserved. My original granting of permission to modify and redistribute continues downstream.
> I mean, I can buy opensource.co.net but that doesn't mean I can tell you how you can use the term.
> Need more of a citation to understand that..?
This nonsense is not at all relevant to the claim for which I asked for a citation: "No, the original definition of open-source is source code that is visible (open) to the public."
Open Source is the same thing as Free Software, just with the different name. The term "Open Source" was coined later to emphasize the business benefits instead of the rights and freedom of the users, but the four freedoms of the Free Software Definition [1] and the ten criteria of the Open Source Definition [2] describe essentially the same thing.
What exactly does "open" mean when used as a qualifier for "source"?
The fact is that your claim "“open source” consists of two words which have meaning, but somehow doesn’t mean ==>that<== when combined into one phrase" is simply false, as there is no "that".
> Same with free software, in a way.
This is a much more supportable argument, but note the change in wording: "free software" is not the same as "free source". The latter suggests that one doesn't have to pay for the source, but says nothing about what one can do with the source or one's rights to software built from that source.
As for "free [as in freedom] software", I think there would have been less contention if RMS/FSF had called it "freed software" or "liberated software", and it would have been more consistent with their stated goals.
> Programmers really are terrible at naming things.
This is silly sophism based on one anecdote that you didn't even get right. Naming things well is hard, and names in software have conditions that don't exist in more casual circumstances. The reality is that good programmers put a lot of effort into choosing names and generally are better at it than the population at large.
You're close: they should have called it "freedom software". Which they wanted to, but couldn't, because it was trademarked. Source: I e-mailed richard stallman to ask why they didn't, he replied.
You're welcome to think what you want, but I've had to explain to enough juniors enough times what "open" actually means, so I know what people without any preconceived notions think it means, vs what experts on HN associate with the word after decades in the industry.
People who are new to the profession entirely, think that "open" means "you can look inside." Source: my life, unfortunately.
> ... that you didn't even get right.
FYI: this style of conversation won't get anyone to listen to you. And FWIW I was referencing the quip which I'm sure your familiar with. It was tongue in cheek.
> The reality is that good programmers put a lot of effort into choosing names and generally are better at it than the population at large.
> I've had to explain to enough juniors enough times what "open" actually means, so I know what people without any preconceived notions think it means, vs what experts on HN associate with the word after decades in the industry.
This is not relevant--it addresses a strawman and deflects from the actual claim you made and that I disputed.
> FYI: this style of conversation won't get anyone to listen to you.
Projection. I will in fact cease to respond to you.
> ... isn't that a No True Scotsman?
Obviously not. Failing to understand the difference between "real", "actual", "true" etc. which are the essence of the fallacy and valid qualifiers like "good" shows a fundamental failure to understand the point of the fallacy.
Even without a specific definition for "open source", I wouldn't consider source code with a restrictive license that doesn't allow you to do much with it to be "open".
I don't think this is a case of programmers being bad at things (although I get that you said that as a joke), I think it's much worse than that: This is some kind of weird mind-over-matter "if we believe it hard enough it'll come true" thing. Sort of an "if we beat everyone who says the emperor has no clothes, we can redefine 'clothes' to include 'the emperor's birthday suit'". Note that these people who are downvoting anyone who dares to say that "open source" isn't synonymous with the OSI definition never concede an inch to the notion that the words have a common-sense meaning and the OSI didn't invent the term (provable via internet archive). Because it's not about being right it's about changing reality to match what they wish were true.
* 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 permissions to redistribute, reuse, etc 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.”
* A club that doesn't have "closed membership" is open to admitting members. Anyone can join provided they meet relevant criteria (if any) then it's "open membership".
Who says it isn't? "closed source" doesn't have a formal definition, but can be arbitrarily defined as the antonym of open source, and when people use the term that's usually what they mean.
And that has nothing to do with whether someone can be "blamed" for ignoring the actual meaning of a term with a formal definition.
Exactly. Reversing the z-test is one way to get a reverse-perspective effect, but it doesn't allow for a smooth transition between projections (like dolly zoom).
Marbotic does the same kind of stuff with specially crafted wooden pieces on a regular android/ipad tablet. Maybe focusing on kids wasn't the best path to success...
https://www.youtube.com/@marbotic
At that speed the limiting factor likely moves from raw power output to things like cornering ability on the track, grip of the tires, aerodynamics, downforce, driver skill, mechanical linkages, etc.
There's a reason why all the world's land speed records since the 1930s [1] get set at the Bonneville Salt Flats or similar flat desert terrain. FWIW, the speed listed in this article was exceeded in 1937. The hard part is not necessarily going fast, it's going fast in a street-legal vehicle.
For a top speed run, cornering ability is next to useless. You need grip to put down the power and be stable at speed, the corners taken for top speed runs are fairly wide. The bigger issue here is for how long can a BEV sustain max power output - it can deplete its battery in 2 minutes. EVs also can only produce top power whilst battery is at top voltage, since draining it drops voltage, max power drops with charge levels. The tyre grip itself is fine, the issue is tyre durability - they can usually last less than 20 minutes at top speed.
It is an impressive feat of engineering to get to a vmax record in a BEV.
I'll need evidence of "Top power at Top Voltage." Since so little capacity is at that part of the curve, It'd make sense to design around (as in avoid, not feature) it rather than use it.
I suspect theres inductance and capacitance enough that even if the motors can't handle the voltage, it can be "clipped" until the pack comes down. (Especially since fmu these are 3phase AC motors, the motor driver is already regulating voltage and current to produce whatever the optimal waveform is)
Apples to broccoli comparison. Besides what I mentioned being optional (I'm sure it has downsides, probably cost), comparing road legal cars with a supercar is... interesting.
You don't need to design around it - it is not like you can use top power for 100% of the time in most EVs anyway, and there's no good reason to restrict it such that the vehicle can operate at a limited max power for longer. ICE cars also reach top power only in a given RPM range, so it still is a curve, albeit turbo cars can flatten the curve quite a bit.
There was quite an interesting youtube from Engineering Explained speculating it had enough power to do 400 mph. There may have been other constraints limiting things like the tyres being safe and apparently the battery only has capacity for 2 mins at full power, plus bits may overheat and the like.
It's also interesting that the fastest time on the Nürburgring at 5 min 19 was from a Porsche hybrid with 900 hp, a fair bit quicker than the BYD which took 6:59 I think. The Porsche had a lot more downforce than the BYD.
>the battery only has capacity for 2 mins at full power
"The tires on the Veyron can only last 15 minutes at top speed, but that's ok because the fuel tank only has capacity for 7 minutes at top speed." (From memory, IIRC, Top Gear on the Veyron)
I watched a video of the speed test a few days ago and it looked like the BYD car was still accelerating when the top speed was reached, such that it could have gone faster than the record they were aiming for—there was a speed curve and it wasn't plateauing. Of course there are lots of possible reasons why the car couldn't have managed a higher speed, but I wonder if it's like incredibly tall skyscrapers having secretly validated a taller version in the wind tunnel so they can change plans if competition catches up during construction.
The best batteries have like 40 times less energy density than engines running on oil derivatives. Even considering that electrical engines are 90% efficient while combustion engines get like 25% efficiency, that still leaves the factor of 10 for energy density. That implies much bigger weight. And to compensate the engines must be more powerful.
Well, power at top speed will probably be similar, they don't seem to be too different aerodynamically (maybe the Bugatti has got the edge there, but still, won't be a 2x difference).
The question is also how much power the battery can continuously output, if it's the 3000hp for 15 seconds that won't be of much use for a max speed test.
The version of pdns-recursor in trixie uses a different configuration
file syntax then older versions.
(There is a tool to convert the old configuration syntax to the new, but it requires a working installation. There is a command line option to enable support for the old format, which if nothing else helps to be able to run the conversion tool, but there's no information how to enable that command line option in the way Debian starts pdns-recursor.)
reply