4 ms·
A better name would be "Free (gratis) alternatives". The point here seems to be finding software you don't have to pay for rather than anything specifically abo
by andy99 3y ago
A better name would be "Free (gratis) alternatives". The point here seems to be finding software you don't have to pay for rather than anything specifically about open source.
- pydry 3y agoThere is zero practical difference between "free and source available" and "open source" for 99.99% of users. I do wonder sometimes why some people get so particular about drawing this specific distinction because it happens on so many threads. Is the freedom to run a competitor to sentry's saas using the code they wrote that coveted a freedom? I can see why Bezos wants this, perhaps. And by extension wealthy big tech shareholders eating that profit too.... but who else? Moreover, "Source available" (a suggested alternative) implies the software is potentially or even likely to be paid which is material difference for those 99.9% of users but is definitely not the case. I get the sense that there is an underlying political ax being ground by gatekeeping this particular definition. I dont buy that this is about "just calling things by their name" when for non-bezos users the distinction is inconsequential.
- vitiral 3y agoThe difference is the freedom to modify, fix, and even fork for yourself if the need arises.
- pydry 3y agoThat is not the difference. You can do all of that with sentry.
- ezekg 3y agoYou obviously know nothing of the licenses you're discussing. It's so frustrating to see this fallacy repeated over and over. SSPL, ELv2, BUSL, and FSL are all forkable. Most even more so than GPL!
- vitiral 3y agoI was referring to no license. I was referring to this statement > There is zero practical difference between "free and source available" and "open source" for 99.99% of users. "Free and source available" is not a license. Without a license it is copyrighted.
- pydry 3y ago"Open source" is not a license either. "Free and source available" describes a group of licenses including sentry's.
- vitiral 3y agoOkay, but "open source" implies you can change and fork the code. "Free and source available" does not, even if you can in some cases. That's literally all I said.
- pydry 3y agoIt sounds like you are agreeing with me that if you can do that then it's not misleading to call those licenses open source.