4 ms·
I never heard it that way. If you can fork it, it's open source, even if contributions are not accepted upstream. If upstream accepts patches but does not allo
by kaoD 5y ago
I never heard it that way.
If you can fork it, it's open source, even if contributions are not accepted upstream. If upstream accepts patches but does not allow forks, it's not open source.
It's about the license, not the project's governance model.
- sidpatil 5y agoThe way I always understood it is that "open source" and "free software" are orthogonal concepts: Open source = bazaar-style (highly-decentralized development) Not open source = cathedral-style (highly-centralized development) Free software = source code released under a license that grants rights such as freedom to modify, redistribute, own a copy of, etc. (see [1] for the proper definition) Nonfree software = source code not released under such a license [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition
- chrisseaton 5y ago> Open source = bazaar-style (highly-decentralized development) > Not open source = cathedral-style (highly-centralized development) Don't conflate cathedral/bazaar to mean open-source/not-open-source. Wasn't the original example of cathedral the open source Emacs project?
- prmoustache 5y agoThose are your own definitions. open-source/free software is about the license, period. Then some people wants to add some romance around it but that is just their own opinion.