# UKAEA RSE Team Journal Club: 03Nov22

:::info
- **Location:** K1/0/85
- **Date:** 3rd November 2022
- **Article Link:** https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
- **Agenda**
1. Brief intro `2 min`
2. Discussion `43 min`
- **Participants:**
- Dan Short
- Aby Abraham
- Kristian Zarebski
- John Nonweiler
- Andrew Hagues
- Patricia Verrier
- Harry Saunders
- Andrew Snodin
- **Host:** Chris MacMackin

## Brief Intro

- Contrast of OSS vs FS
- No great detail, but does mention 4 freedoms
- Use
- Examine source code
- Make changes
- Share changes

## Discussion

- Do we agree with freedoms?
- Freedoms allow additional things from just Open Source - compiling, security
- Some conditions on running based on hash checking
- Relation to free beer concept - does it imply that others can use it, or don't need to pay for it?
- Ideas pre-date digital distribution
- e.g., Distribution of a disk
- Pay to make some software but can then distribute it
- Seeing source code gives some confidence
- Not likely to be able to read/understand all code and can pay for code audit. Is code the same as the app?
- What if you don't have the compiler?
- Could reverse engineer
- Lack of accountability - could inflict issues
- Certification for use on critical systems. Lack of traceability for free software
- Copyright and attribution of released code
- OS community vs FS community. OS doesn't talk about freedoms, only concerned about practicalities of being able to read source code. Is that an accurate description?
- One correct definition of terms is not right
- The point is that OS means source is visible (from English language). Are benefits from it being free or that you're able to see the source?
- Often the case that free is the benefit
- Increasingly hard to know where the benefit
- Can be for marketting
- e.g., GitLab - source is available but can't run it
- c.f. open source models within proprietary frameworks
- Bitwarden - parts are free but others aren't
- Apps that are available for free but pay for support
- Open source used within patents or group projects - is the term still useful?
- Very valuable and widely accepted e.g. crafts with open sourced patterns
- When we talk to people how should we communicate these points?
- Adversarial terminology - what's the point?
- Discussion has said that you can pay for free software
- Software in Linux kernel contributed by paid developers
- FSF is libertarian movement - other areas e.g., hardware aren't free
- Having bought a computer you should be able to take it apart
- "I can copy it so should be able to" overly simplistic
- We should be careful about terms used, check what people mean when they use terms like Open Source. Be clear about interpretation, be more precise.
- Not familiar with FS before, but general interpretation of OS is equivalent to FS
- Licenses can be combined, adding complexity (e.g., rust, tex)
- What if code could be commercial, then may not want it to be OS
- UKAEA has copyright, so need to go via IP office
- OS may be because PMs don't want to pay for software, so licensing may add stress to conversation
- Good topic for team meeting could be different licenses
- Avoid being dismissive for permissive software
- Some organisations have moved to full FS, but simple back office tasks
- What about security implications?
- GPL allows sharing within an organisation