3 ms·
> Edit: Notably it seems some commenters here confuse the idea that FLOSS will allow for forking but open source does not necessarily do so. this depends on yo
by johannes1234321 4y ago
> Edit: Notably it seems some commenters here confuse the idea that FLOSS will allow for forking but open source does not necessarily do so.
this depends on your definition if open source. OSI's definition of open source states
"""
3. Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
"""
https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
Which allows forking. I don't think that any definition of open source not allowing that have a wide spread support.
Aside from the software license there is the question on trademark licensing. Some projects like Mozilla are quite strict on that, that however doesn't prevent forking Firefox, but just requires using a different name (like IceWeasle)
- casion 4y agoIf it "depends on your definition", then it would appear that you agree with me when I say "does not necessarily do so".
- pessimizer 4y agoIt does not necessarily do so if you make up your own thing and label it open source rather than using the standard, intelligible, non-deceptive definition. For example, if you name your dog "Open Source," that doesn't even give me the right to pet it. But I don't think anybody is interested in talking about your dog.
- johannes1234321 4y agoI was giving my definition, which I consider the "industry standard" which is the one by OSI (while I have some issues with the organisation that definition is useful) I however assumed you have another definition.