182
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/opensource@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago

Not proprietary, but source-available.

[-] beyond@linkage.ds8.zone 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)
[-] Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago

Ok sure, but most people associate proprietary with closed-source. What's wrong with just saying source-available (instead of open-source)? Calling this proprietary just leads to confusion.

[-] Spore@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago

Because it gives the wrong impression that it is not proprietary, just like how you are making this exact mistake.

[-] beyond@linkage.ds8.zone 2 points 2 years ago

Because it's not really about the "availability" of source code, but more about what you can actually do with the source code. If you don't have the four freedoms it's not free software.

[-] Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago

Well free software isn't the same thing as open-source software

this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2024
182 points (94.6% liked)

Open Source

43984 readers
865 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS