2 ms·
It's not closed source. They're source available. Which I would argue is better than both Open and Closed source. It provides the flexibility of open source wi
by that_guy_iain 3y ago
It's not closed source. They're source available. Which I would argue is better than both Open and Closed source.
It provides the flexibility of open source with the benefit of being supported and maintained by an actual company that has actual resources. There are percentage wise very few open source projects that have full time resources on them. There are so many tools/projects that if you report a bug to them that bug isn't getting fixed and if you create a PR to fix it it's nto getting merged because the maintainer has moved on with their lives and maintain it as a minor tiny hobby with 1-2 hours a month (if that) and there are tons where they've been taken over for vital maintainance only by a hardcore few that maintain lots of tools since the original maintainer has moved on. This annoys me about open source. It feels super unprofessional and normally we only get something that is maintained properly when it's closed source.
- tedivm 3y agoYou can argue all you want, but it's not Open Source and even you agree about that. Whether "source available" is better or not is an argument I don't really care about- it's just a red herring. The issue I have is companies claiming Source Available is the same thing as Open Source. I find that to be completely unethical.
- that_guy_iain 3y ago> The issue I have is companies claiming Source Available is the same thing as Open Source. I find that to be completely unethical. That is a fair point. It annoys me too.