4 ms·
That's not the definition of "open source", that's the definition of "free software". As you can see by this very article, "open" and "free" are not the same.
by nanny 11y ago
That's not the definition of "open source", that's the definition of "free software". As you can see by this very article, "open" and "free" are not the same.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.e...
- vezzy-fnord 11y agoThey are: http://opensource.org/osd http://opensource.org/osd The only difference is their argument. Free software uses ethical arguments, open source denies ethics altogether and uses consequentialist arguments related to business value and technical superiority (which are becoming increasingly criticized).
- nanny 11y agoI disagree. Would it be accurate to call The GitLab Enterprise Edition "open source"? If not, what would you call it?
- davexunit 11y agoIt's not open source because "open source" is a term with an established definition by the OSI that GitLab Enterprise does not meet.
- noinsight 11y ago> what would you call it? I've heard the term "shared source" which is pretty self explanatory - you can view the source but it's not open/free.
- sytse 11y agoWe call it proprietary to prevent any confusion.
- mikegerwitz 11y agohttps://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-open-overlap.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-open-overlap.html
- vezzy-fnord 11y agoYes. Because of the ethical standpoint, free software inherently opposes DRM, Tivoization, "trusted computing" and software patents, whereas open source in general has no intrinsic view on them.