That’s just incorrect. “Open source” can mean the licensing as well as the development model [0]. It certainly has been associated with the development model since The Cathedral and the Bazaar [1].
The Wikipedia page you linked to refers to "Open-source software development (OSSD)" which implies that it's a different concept than "open source" by itself
You and Bigstrat2003 are arguing a technicality, and you're technically correct, but in context I think that's somewhat beside the point. Skrebbel and Layer8 are focused on the cultural associations of "open source" development, and this mismatch is causing everyone to talk past each other.
The original post in this thread was:
> This is because Carmack doesn't really do OSS, he just does code dumps and tacks on a license ("a gift"). That's of course great and awesome and super nice, but he's not been painstakingly and thanklessly maintaining some key linux component for the last 20 years or something like that. It's an entirely different thing; he made a thing, sold it, and then when he couldn't sell more of it, gave it away. That's nice! But it's not what most people who are deep into open source mean by the term.
Skrebbel probably shouldn't have said that Carmack "doesn't really do OSS", but what they clearly meant was, Carmack doesn't participate in the sort of community development as the Linux kernel or Apache or whatever.
More succinctly, Carmack only contributes his code to OSS, but not his time, and shouldn't impose his values on the wider community that contribute both.
> technically correct, but in context I think that's somewhat beside the point
Talking past people to argue on semantics and pedantry is a HN pastime. It may even be it's primary function.
As pointed out in the OP comment, it's basically 'money for jam' by the point he releases the source code:
> It's an entirely different thing; he made a thing, sold it, and then when he couldn't sell more of it, gave it away. That's nice!
Carmack has extracted as much profit as he could care for from the source code. The releasing of the code is warm fuzzy feelings for zero cost, while keeping it closed source renders zero benefit to him.
If that was the intent don’t you think it would be stated somewhere, or in the faq?
>“Talking” past
It’s only text, there’s no talking past. You can’t talk past someone when the conversation isn’t spoken. At best, you might ignore what they write and go on and on and on at some length on your own point instead, ever meandering further from the words you didn’t read, widening the scope of the original point to include the closest topic that isn’t completely orthogonal to the one at hand, like the current tendency to look for the newest pattern of LLM output in everyone’s’ comments in an attempt to root out all potential AI generated responses. And eventually exhaust all of their rhetoric and perhaps, just maybe, in the very end, get to the
I’m saying that “open source” can mean both things. The parent was arguing that it only means the licensing. I’m not arguing that it always means the development model.
> The Wikipedia page you linked to refers to "Open-source software development (OSSD)" which implies that it's a different concept than "open source" by itself
By that logic, “open source licensing” would also imply a different concept than “open source” by itself.
Note that the Wikipedia page for “open-source software” [2] states: “Open-source software is a prominent example of open collaboration, meaning any capable user is able to participate online in development, making the number of possible contributors indefinite”. That would really only be the case in the context of open-source development.
The "development model" of open source is that one person code dumps, another takes, changes it then dumps it, another picks up the copy with the changes, changes it again, and so on. Sometimes it finds it's way back.
A bazaar is a chaotic market with a million vendors, not anything remotely cooperative. The Cathedral and the Bazaar is meant to convey the idea that OSS code develops without central organization, through endless forking and cloning.
The bazaar model definitely isn't the cooperation and vibes model that the HN crowd thinks it is...
> No quiet, reverent cathedral-building
here — rather, the Linux community seemed to resemble a great
babbling bazaar of differing agendas and approaches (aptly symbolized by the Linux archive sites, which would take submissions from anyone) out of which a coherent and stable system could
seemingly emerge only by a succession of miracles.
The fact that this bazaar style seemed to work, and work well,
came as a distinct shock. As I learned my way around, I worked hard not just at individual projects, but also at trying to understand why the Linux world not only didn’t fly apart in confusion
but seemed to go from strength to strength at a speed barely imaginable to cathedral-builders.
I always think about this section when I consider making my personal programming language public. I think if language development was, in 2026, happing the way ESR describes Linux here I might be more persuaded to release. But as it stands now, almost all modern language development is done in the rigid, semi-planned, hierarchical, and “cathedral”-esque development style.
The expectations for language developers is currently huge burden and a massive undertaking, even for small languages that look to publicize at nearly any level. The amount of users that seem to insist on participation in the language’s progress, semantics, or implementation is the vast majority of any online/vocal user base and those same voices seem to view languages with different development models as inherently toys.
I’m sure this is where I am expected to reference Rich Hickey’s comments/post about Clojure development, but I don’t have the link on mobile. But the discussions are legion and legendary at this point.
Appending ‘development’ seems like a significant departure from ‘vanilla’ “Open Source” to me, and wouldn’t all development be ‘closed-source’ at least between commits, if not between pull requests?
The conferees believed the pragmatic, business-case grounds that had motivated Netscape to release their code illustrated a valuable way to engage with potential software users and developers, and convince them to create and improve source code by participating in an engaged community. The conferees also believed that it would be useful to have a single label that identified this approach and distinguished it from the philosophically- and politically-focused label “free software.”
From the beginning it was about promoting the model of developing software in an open community. The licensing is a means to that, but the motivating idea is to have open-source development.
And Netscape’s release of the source code, what lead to Mozilla, was prompted by the “bazaar” ideas presented by RMS.
I think you have confused RMS (Richard Stallman) and ESR (Eric S. Raymond). It was ESR that coined and popularized the cathedral and bazaar development analogy and terminology. It was also ESR who was at the conference your comment is discussing. RMS is “free software”, copyleft, and GNU. ESR is “open source” and the author of ‘The Cathedral and the Bazaar”.
Of course, I could have misunderstood your comment, if so, mea culpa and feel free to ignore.
I was arguing against this statement: "Open source does not mean, and has never meant, ongoing development nor development with the community." It is simply false that it has never meant that.
While you can have a cathedral-like development and publish it under an open-source license, that's not what RMS was talking about in his essay.
I'm also not arguing about what is good or bad, but about what was meant by the term "open source" when it was introduced, and how it is still understood by many people since then.
> In closed-source software development, the programmers are often spending a lot of time dealing with and creating bug reports, as well as handling feature requests. This time is spent on creating and prioritizing further development plans. This leads to part of the development team spending a lot of time on these issues, and not on the actual development.
So, in closed source you work on bug reports and feature requests. In open source you work on development. But it's the closed source people working on building a cathedral.
I understand what they're driving at, but this is still the stupidest description of the analogy that I've ever seen.
"Open source" means the source code is open to the public for reading and copying. Licenses have complicated the idealistic definition to restrict copying, but that is only within the context of taking credit (ie implicit relicensure). The only winning move is not to play the game at all.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software_developme...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar