This graphic is found on https://www.scratchfoundation.org/our-story

The statistic that it is 100% open source is not true. Scratch is only partially open source. This graphic is misleading and false.

As an example, scratchr2 isn't' open source. The other statistics on this graphic are about the entire website and community so users will assume that the entire website (not only the editor) would be open source too.

Scratch Is Open Source, Here Are The Code Repositories.

chippysmall4 wrote:

Scratch Is Open Source, Here Are The Code Repositories.

But not completely open source, which would under the backend is also totally open source.

chippysmall4 wrote:

Scratch Is Open Source, Here Are The Code Repositories.

Like I said, it's only partially open source. scratchr2, as an example, is closed source.

support, it isn't fully OSS, and even the parts that are don't follow the open source philosophies of accepting contributions.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here. I don't really have an opinion on the suggestion itself, but I'd like to see what thoughts that others have to counter what I'm about to say. It may help collect some ideas about the suggestion at hand.

From an English perspective, it might not be saying that Scratch is 100% “free and open source.” Perhaps it is only saying that it is “100% free” and “open source.” Indeed, Scratch is 100% free, and it is also (at least partially) open source. If you like commas, the current graphic could be saying “100% free, and open source.” In that case, that's not a claim that Scratch is 100% open source.

Again, I'm aware this is a silly argument, but I'm bringing it up in case it helps the suggestion (and I also wonder if this argument would aid in any sort of legal setting).

But as for a more reasonable comment:

leahcimto wrote:

(And I guess it could be argued that open source means you are supposed to accept and welcome contributions but that would be another suggestion…)

Googling “open source” shows that the definition is “denoting software for which the original source code is made freely available and may be redistributed and modified.” This does not seem to require that contributions must be accepted.

I don't know much about law, so this may be inaccurate…
I believe this is a case of false advertising

Za-Chary wrote:

Googling “open source” shows that the definition is “denoting software for which the original source code is made freely available and may be redistributed and modified.” This does not seem to require that contributions must be accepted.

The ideal OSS' users would need to have the four basic freedoms, described in the GNU article about free software:

GNU wrote:

• The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
  
• The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
  
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
  
• The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
  

As you can see Scratchr2 doesn't meet any of this requirements. Therefore, Scratch is not 100% open source.

josueart wrote:

Za-Chary wrote:

Googling “open source” shows that the definition is “denoting software for which the original source code is made freely available and may be redistributed and modified.” This does not seem to require that contributions must be accepted.

The ideal OSS' users would need to have the four basic freedoms, described in the GNU article about free software: […] As you can see Scratchr2 doesn't meet any of this requirements. Therefore, Scratch is not 100% open source.

The comment I wrote (the part you quoted) is mainly just to counter the OP's argument that “open source” should include “accepts contributions.” The four freedoms you wrote don't seem to include this, so what I wrote still seems to be correct. (This is talking about what “open source” means in a general sense, without regards to what Scratch is considered.)

This brings up a new question, which I am going to ask because I don't know the answer. Which parts of scratchr2 are not open-source? Is scratch-www 100% open source? If not, what parts of scratch-www are not open-source?

Za-Chary wrote:

Googling “open source” shows that the definition is “denoting software for which the original source code is made freely available and may be redistributed and modified.” This does not seem to require that contributions must be accepted.

This is correct, based on GNU's 4 basic freedoms, I apologize and retract my original comment.

Za-Chary wrote:

From an English perspective, it might not be saying that Scratch is 100% “free and open source.” Perhaps it is only saying that it is “100% free” and “open source.” Indeed, Scratch is 100% free, and it is also (at least partially) open source. If you like commas, the current graphic could be saying “100% free, and open source.” In that case, that's not a claim that Scratch is 100% open source.

We'd have to know what they mean by free software. Are they referring to free, as in the price, or free like freedom?

GNU wrote:

“Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer.” We sometimes call it “libre software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for “free” as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software is gratis. (source)

If they're referring to the former, the price, and we assume they missed a comma, I guess it would be correct if they added one? And if they were talking about the latter, this suggestion would apply to both as it isn't 100% free as it isn't 100% OSS.

I've found a duplicate. I'll report this to be closed and continue the discussion there.

leahcimto wrote:

We'd have to know what they mean by free software. Are they referring to free, as in the price, or free like freedom?

As someone whose brain is not entirely familiar with terminology used in the computer science community, I read “free” as in the price. If this were the case, the juxtaposition of “free” and “open source” does seem a little confusing, although I suppose it still makes sense in some way.

I wonder if anything were to change if we had an idea of who is the intended audience for this page.

Za-Chary wrote:

Which parts of scratchr2 are not open-source?

Technically no part of Scratchr2 is open source.

Za-Chary wrote:

Is scratch-www 100% open source?

Not at all. Not all parts of the website are released, such as the moderation panel, my profile page or my stuff page.
This is from the scratch-www repository:

README wrote:

In particular, this codebase includes code for:

• the “project page”, which shows a playable version of the project, along with the project's title, description, comments, remixes and studios; this page operates in the background when you “See inside” a project
  
• the site's home page
  
• the Ideas page
  
• landing pages for various Scratch extensions, such as LEGO MINDSTORMS and micro:bit
  
• the info page for Scratch Desktop
  
• and other pages such as Credits and FAQ.
  

By the way, I just wanted to make a honor mention for this

Fallback section in scratch-www wrote:

On top of migrating to using this as our web client, Scratch is also transitioning into using a new API backend, Scratch REST API (closed-source).

support, scratch isnt 100% open source. also why does it say the amnt of females and not also males?-

starlightsparker wrote:

support, scratch isnt 100% open source. also why does it say the amnt of females and not also males?-

It's because women are overall underepresented in computer science (here's one of many sources that cite a statistic). Anyways, this is a duplicate as leahcimto says

I support this, the graphic literally provably false. If Scratch is 100% open source, where is the source for profile pages? Or the backend?

And even if, like Za-Chary was saying, “100% Free and Open Source” means 100% free, and also, separately, open-source (which is an extremely sketchy claim grammatically, they could have said it many other ways if they meant it that way), they're not even technically open-source.

Technically, open-source means they accept community contributions (which Scratch does not, even when it's literally only capitalizing a freaking letter). So this website site is technically not open source, only “source available.” And again, not even 100% source available.

There's literally no way to justify this. The scratch team is provably wrong here. It may have been a mistake or something, but you don't have to make a big deal about it. Just change the graphic. It's not that hard.

Duplicate topic: https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/629752/

Please wait until the other thread is open after a clarification is given.