4 ms·
I'm pretty sure all browser extensions are "open source" but I get what you're saying.
by seven-dev 10y ago
I'm pretty sure all browser extensions are "open source" but I get what you're saying.
- Intermernet 10y agoI understand where you're coming from, but "open source" does not mean "I can read the source". If that were the definition, then Windows 2000[1] is open source. [1]: https://the.bytecode.club/showthread.php?tid=147 https://the.bytecode.club/showthread.php?tid=147
- hannob 10y agoTrue, but Adblock Plus is GPL: https://hg.adblockplus.org/adblockplus/file/tip/COPYING https://hg.adblockplus.org/adblockplus/file/tip/COPYING That qualifies as Open Source under any reasonable definition of the word [1]. So being Open Source is no argument for or against either Adblock Plus or ublock origin, because both are. [1] https://opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license https://opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license
- y0ghur7_xxx 10y agoThe OSI definition of "open source" is not the only definition. I would argue that most people see "open source" as software where the source is "visible" (no data to back that up). Then you have a gazillion of "Open source licenses", that can be less "free" to more "free", like BSD, GNU, MIT, Apache, the free source license, ...
- c22 10y agoMy definition of open source is software where I can modify the source and use the resulting modified software without unnecessary roadblocks or fear of legal reprisal.
- Flimm 10y agoBy open source, most people mean that the source is free to redistribute legally. The OSI definition is more formal. The source being viewable is not enough to qualify it as being open source.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]