4 ms·
This is not true, many commercial packages can be open source without the freedom to redistribute.
by rileymat2 10y ago
This is not true, many commercial packages can be open source without the freedom to redistribute.
- jordigh 10y agoAnd this is why I keep repeating the same thing. Because people have forgotten that open source also means it must have the freedom redistribute. It is point 1: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd And we have also forgotten that open source was a term coined in 1998 (as mentioned by rms in the interview) by the Open Source Initiative and was intended to be a synonym for free software that de-emphasised the freedom part: http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgotten-about-open-source/ http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgot...
- the_why_of_y 10y agoThe Open Source Definition - item 1 is "Free Redistribution": https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd Edit: now I see a sibling already said the same thing but was inexplicably downvoted despite being factually correct and thus hard to read.
- jordigh 10y agoPeople not only have forgotten what "open source" means, some are also violently opposed to being told it means something other than whatever personal definition of it they have. :-)