---
# System prepended metadata

title: 'UKAEA RSE Team Journal Club: 03Nov22'

---

# 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
