3 ms·

I 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

I 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 ago
True, 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 ago
The 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 ago
  My 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.