4 ms·
Except in the context of your jam example open source has always meant free software and has never meant non-free licenses. Hence the term source available. An
by scblock 2y ago
Except in the context of your jam example open source has always meant free software and has never meant non-free licenses. Hence the term source available.
And now "fair source" are you kidding me? "Business friendly" yeah have fun. It's your software and your license. But you don't get to unilaterally redefine what we understand to be open source just because you're butt hurt you got called out on your misuse of the term.
- calebto 2y agoI don't think the fair source is trying to re-define open-source. These companies have acknowledge that people are passionate about keeping the term "open source" true to how the open source initiative defined it, and have chosen to create a new label in which these new licenses can be described by. Creating a distinction between companies who don't give public access to code at all, companies which share code but under licenses which protect their interests for a finite period of time, and "true" open source licenses.
- scblock 2y agoThey literally titled the blog post "The Future of Open Source".