• chebra@mstdn.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    8 months ago

    @isthereanydeal therefore it’s not open source. See for something to be called “open source” it needs a bit more than just for the code to be readable. The only people who define open source as source readable are the people who don’t want to create open source software.

    • isthereanyseal@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      There’s a clear difference between open source and free open source software. It is open source but the licence is not “free”. Not entirely at least

      • chebra@mstdn.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        @isthereanydeal Nope. That distinction only appeared when big companies kinda became afraid of open source software, so they wanted to redefine the term, create some confusion, corrupt it…

    • n0x0n@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Open source is when the source code is available.

      Free software is when the source is available and the license lets you exercise your 4 freedoms.

      • chebra@mstdn.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        @n0x0n You are wrong though: https://opensource.org/osd

        > Introduction
        > Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code.

        Literally the first sentence.

        The definition you are using is being spread by the likes of Meta and Amazon.

          • chebra@mstdn.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            @n0x0n Providing an authoritative source which directly contradicts your statement, that does not make any sense to you? I’m sorry then.