3 ms·
It doesn't appear to actually be open source: > # Copyright 2010 Greplin, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Where's the license? I think the term you want is "publis
by apotheon 16y ago
It doesn't appear to actually be open source:
> # Copyright 2010 Greplin, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Where's the license?
I think the term you want is "publishes", and not "open sources".
- rwalker 16y agoGood catch - updating now. It'll be under Apache 2.0. (edit: done)
- apotheon 16y agoExcellent! I mean, Apache's a bit of an overly complex license implementation for what it does, but what it does is pretty good. Thanks.
- cookiecaper 16y agoAs an aside, I don't really like the idea that "open source" should also have to be synonymous with "free software". Can the intended users access (and possibly modify at least locally) the source? Then it's open source. Why do we need "open source" to be identical to "free software"? Isn't that what "free software" means?
- cookiecaper 16y agoAny downvoters want to explain here? I don't understand what's wrong with the question. Please explain more fully why "open source" should be synonymous with "free software", or, if you downvoted for another reason, please tell me where I went wrong. Thanks.
- apotheon 16y agoI didn't downvote (I haven't even been to the page since before you posted that comment until just now), but maybe I can help you understand why I disagree with what you said: http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/opensource/when-open-source-software-isnt-truly-open-source/2141 http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/opensource/when-open-source... tl;dr: The term "open source" was coined by the people who founded the OSI, and they provided a definition for it. The term many people in the open source community use for software whose source is available (but not open source) is "source-available software".