2 ms·

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 an

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
If you can't build it from source, then it doesn't qualify as open-source to me. If they eventually decide to make the "free" version compile, then I'll be fine with them calling it open source (even if paid features aren't available). However, until then, a more apt description seems like "an open component of a proprietary application"

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

If you can't build it from source, then it doesn't qualify as open-source to me. If they eventually decide to make the "free" version compile, then I'll be fine with them calling it open source (even if paid features aren't available). However, until then, a more apt description seems like "an open component of a proprietary application"