4 ms·

"It's not open source, it's code licensed as open source". Hmkay... I find it impressive how concisely you're contradicting yourself in that sentence.

• trasz 4y ago
  The project is not open source. The code it releases is open source. There's no contradiction - it's perfectly normal for a company to release their code under an open license; Chromium is another example of this. It's technically open, but for almost every practical purpose it could be closed and it would make no difference.
  • Beltalowda 4y ago
    What you're trying to say is "I don't like the way it's run". Okay, fine. That doesn't make it "not open source". I have projects where I don't accept patches. "It works for me" and I just don't feel like reviewing patches. Is that not "open source" in spite of being MIT licenced? "I can do with the code what I want" is the entire and only point of Open Source and Free Software, something Stallman and many others have been pretty clear about over the years.
    • trasz 4y ago
      >"I can do with the code what I want" is the entire and only point of Open Source This is not true at all, as evidenced by http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral.... You are mistaking Open Source for public domain.