140
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] chebra@mstdn.io 1 points 1 day ago

@peregus yes, wrong. Being "open" doesn't mean just "readable". Imagine an open bird cage, not just an open book. It needs to be open to fly free.

[-] peregus@lemmy.world -3 points 1 day ago

The definition of the worlds open source seems to me that the source is readable by everyone. If you mean something different like @stochastic_parrot@sh.itjust.works said, then that's something else.

[-] Lemongrab@lemmy.one 6 points 1 day ago

That is usually referred to as "source available" and doesnt fall into the category of open source.

[-] chebra@mstdn.io 6 points 1 day ago

@peregus why do you think so? My view is backed by the two official definitions from OSI and FSF, plus the wording of specific licenses. Your definition is backed by... linguistics? While ignoring the second (open cage) meaning of "open"? Quite strange narrow definition, don't you think? And at odds with everyone who has been doing open-source for decades.

this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2024
140 points (91.2% liked)

Open Source

30800 readers
966 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 5 years ago
MODERATORS