3 ms·

Someone hasn't read Stallman's issues with (scare quotes) "the open source definition": https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotate

by vacri 11y ago

Someone hasn't read Stallman's issues with (scare quotes) "the open source definition": https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated Also, what software did mpeg describe? I can't see any such reference. And if you mistakenly meant my reference to Windows/Office, well, that was meant as a hypothetical. What term would you use for "publicly visible, but not hackable-by-license" software as opposed to "publicly not visible, and not hackable-by-license"? The former satisfies many concerns with vendor software, in that you can examine the code yourself for bugs, vulnerabilities, or backdoors.

cyphar 11y ago
> Someone hasn't read Stallman's issues with (scare quotes) "the open source definition": https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated That link doesn't seem to have anything to do with what you said. That isn't Stallman's annotations -- he doesn't use the term "open source" and probably wouldn't want his words published on opensource.org. You probably wanted to post this: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.en.h.... The main reason that the FSF and Richard Stallman distinguish free software and "open source" is because "open source" doesn't reference the moral underpinnings of the free software movement. It's just a set of 10 guidelines that appear to be entirely arbitrary (because they're secretly derived from the free software definition, but with more restrictions in some cases). > What term would you use for "publicly visible, but not hackable-by-license" software as opposed to "publicly not visible, and not hackable-by-license"? The former satisfies many concerns with vendor software, in that you can examine the code yourself for bugs, vulnerabilities, or backdoors. I would call both proprietary. The distinction is that they give you the code for the program as part of their proprietary software package. It doesn't make it non-proprietary if that's the distribution model they use.
mindcrime 11y ago
What term would you use for "publicly visible, but not hackable-by-license" Historically, the term "Shared Source" has been used to refer to those kinds of situations, although it's not exactly a strict definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_source

by vacri 11y ago

cyphar 11y ago

> Someone hasn't read Stallman's issues with (scare quotes) "the open source definition": https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated That link doesn't seem to have anything to do with what you said. That isn't Stallman's annotations -- he doesn't use the term "open source" and probably wouldn't want his words published on opensource.org. You probably wanted to post this: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.en.h.... The main reason that the FSF and Richard Stallman distinguish free software and "open source" is because "open source" doesn't reference the moral underpinnings of the free software movement. It's just a set of 10 guidelines that appear to be entirely arbitrary (because they're secretly derived from the free software definition, but with more restrictions in some cases). > What term would you use for "publicly visible, but not hackable-by-license" software as opposed to "publicly not visible, and not hackable-by-license"? The former satisfies many concerns with vendor software, in that you can examine the code yourself for bugs, vulnerabilities, or backdoors. I would call both proprietary. The distinction is that they give you the code for the program as part of their proprietary software package. It doesn't make it non-proprietary if that's the distribution model they use.

mindcrime 11y ago

What term would you use for "publicly visible, but not hackable-by-license" Historically, the term "Shared Source" has been used to refer to those kinds of situations, although it's not exactly a strict definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_source