2 ms·
Dammit TechCrunch... neither this nor the previous license were/are "open source". My comment from another thread: >As an outspoken critic of the original cha
by Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
Dammit TechCrunch... neither this nor the previous license were/are "open source".
My comment from another thread:
>As an outspoken critic of the original change, I applaud this move. I still wish it were open source, but this solves a lot of the confusing nomenclature I took offense with. Kudos.
That being said, this is some serious bullshit:
>But after the initial noise calmed down — and especially after some other companies came out with a similar concept — the community now understands that the original concept of open source has to be fixed
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- zokier 8y agoThe only place TechCrunch refers to it as open source is the title. The article body even explains that it isn't open source > By definition, an open-source license can’t have limitations. This new license does, so it’s technically not an open-source license.
- Sir_Cmpwn 8y agoThis language is still awful. The title is inexcusable and this "technically" qualifier is implying that open source is some flimsy title to be bandied about with software that is not.