3 ms·
That is not a settled debate IMO, even Stallman said as much. Sure its not FOSS / FLOSS, but trying to push for a position where open source doesn't mean I can
by Sytten 3y ago
That is not a settled debate IMO, even Stallman said as much. Sure its not FOSS / FLOSS, but trying to push for a position where open source doesn't mean I can see the code is very much not agreed by everybody.
EDIT: See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
- alexvoda 3y agoJust like Microsofts opinion didn't matter whenever they tried to dilute the meaning of open source, and just like MongoDB's and others opinion didn't matter, your opinion doesn't matter. Microsoft is far more convincing than you and they did not win this argument. Microsoft gave up and now only calls OSI-approved licenses open source. Open Source means OSI-approved. If you can read the source code but it's not OSI-approved, than it's source-available or shared source or something else.