5 ms·
Please tell Louis he is damaging the project by calling it open source when it is not. If you want to be Free Libre Open Source Software then use an OSI and FS
by alexvoda 3y ago
Please tell Louis he is damaging the project by calling it open source when it is not.
If you want to be Free Libre Open Source Software then use an OSI and FSF approved licence.
If you want to be FLOSS and protect your brand from people cloning your app, do like Mozilla and use a trademark + MPL.
If you don't want to be open source don't call it open source, it's shared source or something else.
I told him and he did not seem to consider it a big deal.
- tcfhgj 3y agoHe called it open source, not floss, didn't he? It's not shared source, since anyone is able to inspect the source code, not just a subset of people
- alexvoda 3y agoThis is a settled debate. You will not convince anyone to use your definitions. We had this debate when MongoDB switched, when CockroachDB switched and for many others. And nothing has changed. Open source means OSI-approved licence and that will not change. This is shared source or source-available, not open source.
- tcfhgj 3y agoYou aren't authorative for the term either. And, obviously, thanks to your comments, the debate doesn't seem to be settled.
- jillesvangurp 3y agoThe debate only exists in the heads of apologists for shared source. The OSI definition exists to remove the need for a debate. It's either OSS or it isn't per their definition.
- tcfhgj 3y agoInteresting rejection of reality
- mx20 3y agoWhy do non programmers know about open source if it doesn't concern them? They don't have any benefit from an source open application besides maybe theoretically better security audits. I would arue is because people expect that you can pick it up and change the code, so it can be forked and continued in the future and also because it's usually free. It's also not the only deceptive Adventisten. He also claimed that you can use it how you want the only use case they want prevent is injecting ads into their app. But that could be better solved with a trademark.
- yreg 3y agoDoesn't seem like this is a settled debate at all.
- pbasista 3y ago> calling it open source when it is not At first please define "open source". 1. Do you use this term as an alias for "The Open Source Definition" [0] as presented by the Open Source Initiative? In such case, the Grayjay project's license seems to not meet this definition. 2. Do you use it in a more general sense to mean any software whose source code is publicly available? In such case, the Grayjay project fully meets this definition. [0] https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/ I would be very cautious to assume that the term "open source" must always and in all contexts be interpreted as having the meaning described by the definition 1.
- dre_bot 3y agoChrist, no one goddamn cares if it's open source or not! It's an app sourly needed right now.
- alexvoda 3y agoYour statement is obliviously false. People care about different things. Some people do not care about using pirated versions of Office. Some people care very much about whether software is or isn't open source especially when it is claimed to be but isn't. Being open source means that if FUTO goes bankrupt or is purchased or abandons GrayJay due to unprofitability or decides to pivot and become anti-user or etc. etc., then the app can be forked. The current licences is so stupid that not only does it not allow forking, it actually does not allow using the app for it's intended purpose. This is egregious open-washing.