> what in your mind would need to happen to make this book open source
Gitbooks is a good example of that.
Open Source is easy to define. This is a PDF, so it's the artifact of some 'build' producing it. If a book is open source, I'd expect a .tex file, or whatever the input was which created the PDF, with the pictures attached or the code which draws the pictures/graphs/etc... If it's a word document, I guess that also works. I'm also not the only one to call it out: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37779549
> I'm not sure the snarky "I'm referring to the content itself, not what is advertised about it." is necessary or particularly helpful.
There is no snark here. I asked a question about the content of the book. I got an answer from the article talking about the book, which I already read.
Perhaps "Open Access" as used on the edition notice is more technically accurate but I'm not seeing how getting any "build" assets to generate this PDF is any better or more free/open than having the PDF and being able to do whatever you want to it within the rules of attribution.
SQLite is undeniably open source yet the general public can't contribute code to it, so I'm not sure why that's meant to be the defining feature in the case of the book.
The earlier request for a .tex source file was on the mark, but accepting contributions has nothing to do with it.
Please don't strawman my argument. The idea was that I don't have access to the raw assets used to compile the book, not necessarily that I want to contribute to it. Say I want to fork it.
It's not a strawman just because it hurts your argument. :)
The point is that you can't reasonably say SQLite is not open source, and the limitations around SQLite and this book are comparable. So it's not an immediate "No. End of discussion." that the book isn't open source.
You're entitled to your opinion but you probably shouldn't act like everyone else is an idiot for disagreeing with you.
> what in your mind would need to happen to make this book open source
Gitbooks is a good example of that.
Open Source is easy to define. This is a PDF, so it's the artifact of some 'build' producing it. If a book is open source, I'd expect a .tex file, or whatever the input was which created the PDF, with the pictures attached or the code which draws the pictures/graphs/etc... If it's a word document, I guess that also works. I'm also not the only one to call it out: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37779549
> I'm not sure the snarky "I'm referring to the content itself, not what is advertised about it." is necessary or particularly helpful.
There is no snark here. I asked a question about the content of the book. I got an answer from the article talking about the book, which I already read.