5 ms·

I've noticed a lot of Apple software pretends to be open-source (like this one: "Lunar is also open-source so you can check that for yourself: Github - alin23/L

by orlp 5y ago

I've noticed a lot of Apple software pretends to be open-source (like this one: "Lunar is also open-source so you can check that for yourself: Github - alin23/Lunar "), when they really aren't. They're - at best - open core: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-core_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-core_model For example, I quote from the Lunar GitHub page: > I'm pausing contributions for the moment as Lunar has paid features and isn't compilable because of missing parts of the source code (Pro features code is encrypted). > Lunar can't be built from this repo yet as the source code for the paid features is hidden. I will try to post stubs for those paid features to at least make it compilable in an only-free-features form. So right now I couldn't modify and/or redistribute Lunar as I see fit. It is not open source. And even if the Lunar repository is updated so that it at least compiles the free version, then what? Then it would fit the strictest definitions of open-source (you are free to modify and redistribute), but would miss the community aspect completely due to misaligned incentives. I could add a great feature, but my pull request would be denied if it overlaps a paid feature. You could fork Lunar at that point and make all the traditionally paid features for free and accept pull requests simply based on merit. But at that point you would be open-source, and not open-core anymore, and the concept of a paid version would simply go away. I don't really see open-core actually working in any way other than an attempt to leech contributions from the open-source community without playing by its rules.

eptcyka 5y ago
This is why free software is what we should be aiming for, not just OSS.
alin23 5y ago
Yes, it's not open-source by that definition. It was fully open-source until v3: https://github.com/alin23/Lunar/tree/lunar3 https://github.com/alin23/Lunar/tree/lunar3 I've kept that around, it's still compilable, but probably not that useful. When making Lunar paid in v4, I didn't want to remove the possibility of sharing knowledge, so I kept the non-paid parts open-source. This allowed other apps like MonitorControl [1] and DisplayBuddy [2] to port some Lunar features (like DDC on M1) to their own code. So I'd say it's still useful enough. [1] https://github.com/MonitorControl/MonitorControl https://github.com/MonitorControl/MonitorControl [2] https://displaybuddy.app https://displaybuddy.app
- datapolitical 5y ago
  Your software looks amazing, unfortunately I use a Windows computer at work. What’s the best equivalent?
  - alin23 5y ago
    Thanks! Monitorian is the closest thing on Windows.
- prashnts 5y ago
  > This allowed other apps like MonitorControl [1] and DisplayBuddy [2] to port some Lunar features (like DDC on M1) to their own code. So I'd say it's still useful enough. When I was trying to do some iOS dev, I basically noticed that having open source or even open core projects accessible for free helped a lot. It ranged from some hard-to-google things, like "how should I structure this part of the code", to fulfilling the utter lack of good documentation. So, thank you for releasing this! I'm not sure if it still holds, but Blink app (for ssh, €21) could be built yourself, but I still paid for it because it seemed easiest. So there is some possibility to keep source open while offering a paid app. Not everyone is going to bother to build it.
- orlp 5y ago
  Just to clarify, I am okay with paid software existing. It is even better if you share (parts of) the source code to the community in a permissive license. But unless your incentives are aligned with community, I would be crystal-clear and not advertise it as open-source. Your incentives aren't aligned with the community. Should a free, open-source alternative to Lunar exist with all its features, your sales would go down. It is in your best interest to: 1. Create the best possible product that works the fastest, smoothest, without bugs, etc. 2. Create a minimal viable free product maximizing the amount of new trial users for Lunar. 3. Maximize the difference between the free and premium product to convert the most users from #2. Open source contributors shares incentive #1 with you. They don't share incentive #2, but there's no conflict here. But incentive #3 directly clashes with those of an open source contributor if only the free product is open source. I want to assume good intentions here, because the malicious interpretation would be that one wants to take advantage of the open source community by getting free work done on incentive #1 while rejecting anything that would cross incentive #3. So what is your goal? You obviously want to make money - we all do. What else? Is your goal to give to the open-source community for similar applications that wouldn't directly compete with you? It's noble, but risky, as you can't enforce that. If your goal is to conduct a 'business transaction' with the open-source community: "access to my source code in exchange for potential contributions under conditions w.r.t. incentive #3", that's fine too. But that is not open-source. If you simply publish the source code explicitly stating that parts of the source code of Lunar is available under a permissive license, that you only merge contributions that fix bugs or add pre-approved features, but otherwise people are free to do with it what they want, I don't have a problem with it. But calling it open-source is misleading in my opinion.
Cthulhu_ 5y ago
What would be some good options to get paid for open source? In this case, is this an application that could be distributed via the app store? The issue with making money off open source tools like this is that it's often aimed at tech savvy people / developers already, who can easily find the binaries to install themselves for free.
- fsflover 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_models_for_open-source_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_models_for_open-sourc...
- orlp 5y ago
  > What would be some good options to get paid for open source? Many might read this as "good options to get paid money in exchange for open-source source code". Then the answer is simple: you can, but only once. The code is freely redistributable without restrictions by anyone, thus no scarcity that one could get paid for exists after the initial sale (if the sale ever existed). So I think a better reading of the question is "good options to paid as an open-source developer". One could have a money pot for certain features of the software (which may or may not be done yet), that interested users can contribute in or outright buy, which you would then develop (or publish). E.g. "I will develop UTF-16 support in FooApp for $5000". This is especially interesting for open-source software used by enterprise. The problem* here is someone else might offer to do it for less (including free). A bad incentive here is that if you also control the "canonical" repository or project, you can reject pull requests for features that you intend to sell. An alternative is donation-ware, either through the project or directly to you as a person. The problem* here is that whoever controls the landing page of the most popular fork decides where the majority of the donations go to. Why did I highlight problem with an asterisk in both cases? Because they have a common cause: we would like to think that if we're the original author of a piece of open-source software, we are in some way special. The original, authentic, canonical, "real" software. We deserve to get paid for it, and no one else should. And people tend to agree! But as per my opening paragraph - the exclusivity is inherently gone. So economically, we can't be. And I don't think a good 'solution' for this exists, although I admit I haven't thought about it enough.
dessant 5y ago
You have to appreciate how much effort goes into creating this piece of software, everything from the app to the changelog looks like a work of art. I think your definition of open source is a bit corrupted, and skewed towards expecting people to work for free in perpetuity. The Lunar repository contains open source code, and you should not expect it to compile without errors, nor should you expect maintainers to accept patches. They don't owe you anything, and they already gave you more than most developers will do through their entire careers. I think it's perfectly understandable that the developer tries to find ways to make such a high quality project sustainable and profitable in the long term, and it won't help anyone to diss on them.
- naoqj 5y ago
  "open source" is a term with a very strict meaning. This app does not comply with that meaning for several reasons that he has outlined. He is not asking for the developer to comply with the term, he is asking for the developer to stop lying.
  - girvo 5y ago
    Is it? “Free software” was the strict one, to my understanding, but I freely admit I’m likely wrong.
- NikolaNovak 5y ago
  Those are two separate topics. Good software is hard, I expect developers to make a living, and have zero expectations of them open sourcing it or distributing it for free. I am happy to pay for useful software and while I think open source is great, I don't veer into "information wants to be free!!1" idealism. That being said, open source has both formal and colloquially accepted definitions. Not withstanding anything in my previous paragraph, I support holding accountable any entity, large company or individual developer alike, to conform to that notion once they choose to make a claim of being open source. I. E. You don't Have to make it open source, but if you claim you do, then you actually should :)
- jonp888 5y ago
  "This product is so incredibly amazing that you should be grateful to us that we allow you to use it at all, and not ask any awkward questions about the restrictions we've placed on how you use it" is such a 'Apple' answer :)
dTal 5y ago
Very astute. Open-core cannot be a true citizen. I also perceive a similar conflict of interest with the "open source but pay for support" model. A good deal of software I've come across with this model was perversely byzantine. If your users only pay you when they're confused, there's negative incentive to make it less confusing.
- api 5y ago
  Citizen in what? A free labor pool for billion dollar companies and hustle culture bros who want to rebrand some FOSS and slap a control panel on it for a quick SaaS flip? FOSS is supposed to be a gift culture. You give back by making your own, fixing bugs, doing volunteer tech support, or yes paying the creators or a company or foundation that pays them. You don't just take and then whine about "gimme my free stuff," but that's the attitude that many people seem to have adopted. Another thing I really dislike is the ecosystem being dominated by surveillance capitalist companies. They have a vested interest in using FOSS to steer the ecosystem in ways that benefit them and their interests, and I don't like the direction they are likely to take things. Unfortunately they have plenty of money to "dump" high-quality open source on the market in order to exercise leverage over it. This isn't charity. It's a control technique. I am personally starting to dislike the OSI for pretending these issues don't even exist. If you look at who funds OSI it's completely captured by mega-corporations, mostly in the surveillance capitalist space. Open source needs a steward that cares about the freedom part more than the free part.
  - teddyh 5y ago
    > FOSS is supposed to be […] FOSS is “supposed” to be about individual liberty of the lone user to make any changes needed for themselves, and the right of that user to publish those changes as they see fit. Nothing more. Otherwise, I agree with you. If you want to stave off corporations doing this, you should use the AGPLv3 license.
q-big 5y ago
> Then it would fit the strictest definitions of open-source (you are free to modify and redistribute), but would miss the community aspect completely due to misaligned incentives. I could add a great feature, but my pull request would be denied if it overlaps a paid feature. Not every open-source project accepts contributions. This is something that you just interpret into "open source", but was never part of it. What open source rather means is that you are free to create your own version/forks that you maintain by yourself if you want some personal code included.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- orlp 5y ago
  > Not every open-source project accepts contributions. This is something that you just interpret into "open source", but was never part of it. I do interpret it into it, as do many others. But not everyone. Stallman and the people at GNU have fought against the term "open source" for a long time, precisely because people have different ideas of it: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... > What open source rather means is that you are free to create your own version/forks that you maintain by yourself if you want some personal code included. That is commonly referred to as free (as in freedom, not price) software, which is the strictest interpretation of open source I can come up with. Note that others have other interpretations of 'open source' that are even more strict (you may only view the source code, for example, or you may modify but not redistribute the code)! I personally don't include 'binary virality' a-la GPL in this strictest interpretation, but again, some do. Ultimately open source doesn't have one clear definition. In my book it means free software that is developed 'in the open' - accepting contributions from anyone based on merit. A more precise modern term would be FOSS - that is what I understand when I see open-source.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
    I don't get into the OSS religious arguments. I consider almost all my stuff to be "open source," even the couple of projects that are "source available."[0] I think that it's important to make it all available, if I will call it "open source," but there's no reason, in my mind, to make it so that people can just take my work and use it commercially. That said, I generally like to use the MIT license, because I don't like coercive licenses. I just don't like it when people try to coerce me, so I won't do it to them. I am currently working on a non-open-source/non-source-available project. Considerable parts of it are open-source (MIT license), but the core app code, as well as a modified variant of my BAOBAB server[1], are proprietary and locked away. I don't think any of it is particularly awesome or worthy of secrets, but the folks I'm working with aren't as sanguine as am I, when it comes to opening the kimono, and I'll respect their wishes. I worked for years, for a corporation that had Fort Knox trade secret security. It's something that I'm used to doing. [0] https://github.com/RiftValleySoftware/ambiamara https://github.com/RiftValleySoftware/ambiamara [1] https://riftvalleysoftware.com/work/open-source-projects/#baobab https://riftvalleysoftware.com/work/open-source-projects/#ba...
samwillis 5y ago
I disagree, it is Open Source, just not all of it. To me Open Source means the source code has been published under a licence that allows me to make changes and to some extent redistribute it. A good indicator is if the licence is approved by OSI (https://opensource.org/licenses https://opensource.org/licenses) It does not mean: - they take contributions - there is a “community” - there is support - that it is “developed in the open” - that there is a public bug/issue tracker - that they provide you with details in how to compile or run it - there is any documentation - that the source code is in a complete state and wouldn’t need changes to get it to run If it ticked those boxes it’s an “Open Source Community Project”. If the source code (or at least a significant portion of it) is available under a OSI approved license then it’s Open Source. If not all the source is available they should probably say it’s “partially Open Source” to be better citizens. I believe the FSF would even mostly agree with that list for their definition of “free software”, however they have stronger thoughts about the licences and restrictions they apply.
- teekert 5y ago
  Here is a free (as in) beer, except for the molecules contributed by the hop, those are 2$ a per glass of beer.
- Diggsey 5y ago
  > If the source code (or at least a significant portion of it) is available under a OSI approved license then it’s Open Source. It's the part in brackets I disagree with... If a significant portion of a piece of software is available under an OSI approved license, then a significant portion of it is open source. It's still wrong to call the product open source, because "the product" includes integral parts that are not open source.
- shultays 5y ago
  What percentage of code is needed for you to call something open source? If not all the source is available they should probably say it’s “partially Open Source” to be better citizens. Indeed, sounds like you also agree with not calling this open source then?
- smoldesu 5y ago
mhh__ 5y ago
AppleClang is also just not open source at all as far as I'm aware. I fixed a bug in a compiler where apple deprecated object destructors with apparently very little reason or announcement.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by orlp 5y ago

eptcyka 5y ago

This is why free software is what we should be aiming for, not just OSS.

alin23 5y ago

Yes, it's not open-source by that definition. It was fully open-source until v3: https://github.com/alin23/Lunar/tree/lunar3 https://github.com/alin23/Lunar/tree/lunar3 I've kept that around, it's still compilable, but probably not that useful. When making Lunar paid in v4, I didn't want to remove the possibility of sharing knowledge, so I kept the non-paid parts open-source. This allowed other apps like MonitorControl [1] and DisplayBuddy [2] to port some Lunar features (like DDC on M1) to their own code. So I'd say it's still useful enough. [1] https://github.com/MonitorControl/MonitorControl https://github.com/MonitorControl/MonitorControl [2] https://displaybuddy.app https://displaybuddy.app

datapolitical 5y ago
Your software looks amazing, unfortunately I use a Windows computer at work. What’s the best equivalent?
- alin23 5y ago
  Thanks! Monitorian is the closest thing on Windows.
prashnts 5y ago
> This allowed other apps like MonitorControl [1] and DisplayBuddy [2] to port some Lunar features (like DDC on M1) to their own code. So I'd say it's still useful enough. When I was trying to do some iOS dev, I basically noticed that having open source or even open core projects accessible for free helped a lot. It ranged from some hard-to-google things, like "how should I structure this part of the code", to fulfilling the utter lack of good documentation. So, thank you for releasing this! I'm not sure if it still holds, but Blink app (for ssh, €21) could be built yourself, but I still paid for it because it seemed easiest. So there is some possibility to keep source open while offering a paid app. Not everyone is going to bother to build it.
orlp 5y ago
Just to clarify, I am okay with paid software existing. It is even better if you share (parts of) the source code to the community in a permissive license. But unless your incentives are aligned with community, I would be crystal-clear and not advertise it as open-source. Your incentives aren't aligned with the community. Should a free, open-source alternative to Lunar exist with all its features, your sales would go down. It is in your best interest to: 1. Create the best possible product that works the fastest, smoothest, without bugs, etc. 2. Create a minimal viable free product maximizing the amount of new trial users for Lunar. 3. Maximize the difference between the free and premium product to convert the most users from #2. Open source contributors shares incentive #1 with you. They don't share incentive #2, but there's no conflict here. But incentive #3 directly clashes with those of an open source contributor if only the free product is open source. I want to assume good intentions here, because the malicious interpretation would be that one wants to take advantage of the open source community by getting free work done on incentive #1 while rejecting anything that would cross incentive #3. So what is your goal? You obviously want to make money - we all do. What else? Is your goal to give to the open-source community for similar applications that wouldn't directly compete with you? It's noble, but risky, as you can't enforce that. If your goal is to conduct a 'business transaction' with the open-source community: "access to my source code in exchange for potential contributions under conditions w.r.t. incentive #3", that's fine too. But that is not open-source. If you simply publish the source code explicitly stating that parts of the source code of Lunar is available under a permissive license, that you only merge contributions that fix bugs or add pre-approved features, but otherwise people are free to do with it what they want, I don't have a problem with it. But calling it open-source is misleading in my opinion.

Cthulhu_ 5y ago

What would be some good options to get paid for open source? In this case, is this an application that could be distributed via the app store? The issue with making money off open source tools like this is that it's often aimed at tech savvy people / developers already, who can easily find the binaries to install themselves for free.

fsflover 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_models_for_open-source_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_models_for_open-sourc...
orlp 5y ago
> What would be some good options to get paid for open source? Many might read this as "good options to get paid money in exchange for open-source source code". Then the answer is simple: you can, but only once. The code is freely redistributable without restrictions by anyone, thus no scarcity that one could get paid for exists after the initial sale (if the sale ever existed). So I think a better reading of the question is "good options to paid as an open-source developer". One could have a money pot for certain features of the software (which may or may not be done yet), that interested users can contribute in or outright buy, which you would then develop (or publish). E.g. "I will develop UTF-16 support in FooApp for $5000". This is especially interesting for open-source software used by enterprise. The problem* here is someone else might offer to do it for less (including free). A bad incentive here is that if you also control the "canonical" repository or project, you can reject pull requests for features that you intend to sell. An alternative is donation-ware, either through the project or directly to you as a person. The problem* here is that whoever controls the landing page of the most popular fork decides where the majority of the donations go to. Why did I highlight problem with an asterisk in both cases? Because they have a common cause: we would like to think that if we're the original author of a piece of open-source software, we are in some way special. The original, authentic, canonical, "real" software. We deserve to get paid for it, and no one else should. And people tend to agree! But as per my opening paragraph - the exclusivity is inherently gone. So economically, we can't be. And I don't think a good 'solution' for this exists, although I admit I haven't thought about it enough.

dessant 5y ago

You have to appreciate how much effort goes into creating this piece of software, everything from the app to the changelog looks like a work of art. I think your definition of open source is a bit corrupted, and skewed towards expecting people to work for free in perpetuity. The Lunar repository contains open source code, and you should not expect it to compile without errors, nor should you expect maintainers to accept patches. They don't owe you anything, and they already gave you more than most developers will do through their entire careers. I think it's perfectly understandable that the developer tries to find ways to make such a high quality project sustainable and profitable in the long term, and it won't help anyone to diss on them.

naoqj 5y ago
"open source" is a term with a very strict meaning. This app does not comply with that meaning for several reasons that he has outlined. He is not asking for the developer to comply with the term, he is asking for the developer to stop lying.
- girvo 5y ago
  Is it? “Free software” was the strict one, to my understanding, but I freely admit I’m likely wrong.
NikolaNovak 5y ago
Those are two separate topics. Good software is hard, I expect developers to make a living, and have zero expectations of them open sourcing it or distributing it for free. I am happy to pay for useful software and while I think open source is great, I don't veer into "information wants to be free!!1" idealism. That being said, open source has both formal and colloquially accepted definitions. Not withstanding anything in my previous paragraph, I support holding accountable any entity, large company or individual developer alike, to conform to that notion once they choose to make a claim of being open source. I. E. You don't Have to make it open source, but if you claim you do, then you actually should :)
jonp888 5y ago
"This product is so incredibly amazing that you should be grateful to us that we allow you to use it at all, and not ask any awkward questions about the restrictions we've placed on how you use it" is such a 'Apple' answer :)

dTal 5y ago

Very astute. Open-core cannot be a true citizen. I also perceive a similar conflict of interest with the "open source but pay for support" model. A good deal of software I've come across with this model was perversely byzantine. If your users only pay you when they're confused, there's negative incentive to make it less confusing.

api 5y ago
Citizen in what? A free labor pool for billion dollar companies and hustle culture bros who want to rebrand some FOSS and slap a control panel on it for a quick SaaS flip? FOSS is supposed to be a gift culture. You give back by making your own, fixing bugs, doing volunteer tech support, or yes paying the creators or a company or foundation that pays them. You don't just take and then whine about "gimme my free stuff," but that's the attitude that many people seem to have adopted. Another thing I really dislike is the ecosystem being dominated by surveillance capitalist companies. They have a vested interest in using FOSS to steer the ecosystem in ways that benefit them and their interests, and I don't like the direction they are likely to take things. Unfortunately they have plenty of money to "dump" high-quality open source on the market in order to exercise leverage over it. This isn't charity. It's a control technique. I am personally starting to dislike the OSI for pretending these issues don't even exist. If you look at who funds OSI it's completely captured by mega-corporations, mostly in the surveillance capitalist space. Open source needs a steward that cares about the freedom part more than the free part.
- teddyh 5y ago
  > FOSS is supposed to be […] FOSS is “supposed” to be about individual liberty of the lone user to make any changes needed for themselves, and the right of that user to publish those changes as they see fit. Nothing more. Otherwise, I agree with you. If you want to stave off corporations doing this, you should use the AGPLv3 license.

q-big 5y ago

> Then it would fit the strictest definitions of open-source (you are free to modify and redistribute), but would miss the community aspect completely due to misaligned incentives. I could add a great feature, but my pull request would be denied if it overlaps a paid feature. Not every open-source project accepts contributions. This is something that you just interpret into "open source", but was never part of it. What open source rather means is that you are free to create your own version/forks that you maintain by yourself if you want some personal code included.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
orlp 5y ago
> Not every open-source project accepts contributions. This is something that you just interpret into "open source", but was never part of it. I do interpret it into it, as do many others. But not everyone. Stallman and the people at GNU have fought against the term "open source" for a long time, precisely because people have different ideas of it: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... > What open source rather means is that you are free to create your own version/forks that you maintain by yourself if you want some personal code included. That is commonly referred to as free (as in freedom, not price) software, which is the strictest interpretation of open source I can come up with. Note that others have other interpretations of 'open source' that are even more strict (you may only view the source code, for example, or you may modify but not redistribute the code)! I personally don't include 'binary virality' a-la GPL in this strictest interpretation, but again, some do. Ultimately open source doesn't have one clear definition. In my book it means free software that is developed 'in the open' - accepting contributions from anyone based on merit. A more precise modern term would be FOSS - that is what I understand when I see open-source.
- ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
  I don't get into the OSS religious arguments. I consider almost all my stuff to be "open source," even the couple of projects that are "source available."[0] I think that it's important to make it all available, if I will call it "open source," but there's no reason, in my mind, to make it so that people can just take my work and use it commercially. That said, I generally like to use the MIT license, because I don't like coercive licenses. I just don't like it when people try to coerce me, so I won't do it to them. I am currently working on a non-open-source/non-source-available project. Considerable parts of it are open-source (MIT license), but the core app code, as well as a modified variant of my BAOBAB server[1], are proprietary and locked away. I don't think any of it is particularly awesome or worthy of secrets, but the folks I'm working with aren't as sanguine as am I, when it comes to opening the kimono, and I'll respect their wishes. I worked for years, for a corporation that had Fort Knox trade secret security. It's something that I'm used to doing. [0] https://github.com/RiftValleySoftware/ambiamara https://github.com/RiftValleySoftware/ambiamara [1] https://riftvalleysoftware.com/work/open-source-projects/#baobab https://riftvalleysoftware.com/work/open-source-projects/#ba...

samwillis 5y ago

I disagree, it is Open Source, just not all of it. To me Open Source means the source code has been published under a licence that allows me to make changes and to some extent redistribute it. A good indicator is if the licence is approved by OSI (https://opensource.org/licenses https://opensource.org/licenses) It does not mean: - they take contributions - there is a “community” - there is support - that it is “developed in the open” - that there is a public bug/issue tracker - that they provide you with details in how to compile or run it - there is any documentation - that the source code is in a complete state and wouldn’t need changes to get it to run If it ticked those boxes it’s an “Open Source Community Project”. If the source code (or at least a significant portion of it) is available under a OSI approved license then it’s Open Source. If not all the source is available they should probably say it’s “partially Open Source” to be better citizens. I believe the FSF would even mostly agree with that list for their definition of “free software”, however they have stronger thoughts about the licences and restrictions they apply.

teekert 5y ago
Here is a free (as in) beer, except for the molecules contributed by the hop, those are 2$ a per glass of beer.
Diggsey 5y ago
> If the source code (or at least a significant portion of it) is available under a OSI approved license then it’s Open Source. It's the part in brackets I disagree with... If a significant portion of a piece of software is available under an OSI approved license, then a significant portion of it is open source. It's still wrong to call the product open source, because "the product" includes integral parts that are not open source.
shultays 5y ago
What percentage of code is needed for you to call something open source? If not all the source is available they should probably say it’s “partially Open Source” to be better citizens. Indeed, sounds like you also agree with not calling this open source then?
smoldesu 5y ago

mhh__ 5y ago

AppleClang is also just not open source at all as far as I'm aware. I fixed a bug in a compiler where apple deprecated object destructors with apparently very little reason or announcement.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]