3 ms·

What definition of "Open Source" are you talking about that allows to not give your users the source code?

• actionfromafar 2y ago
  It's a reference to that GPL protects user access to source. (Sour grapes that the term Open Source encompasses Free Software as defined by FSF, I'd say.)
  • klez 2y ago
    The second point of the Open Source Definition is literally: > 2. Source Code > The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form So I'm still not sure what they're talking about. Unless they're talking about MIT, BSD, Apache, etc. licenses, that allow third parties to redistribute compiled binaries without having to provide source code, in which case the point is still weird, since they are still considered Free Software licenses by the FSF.
    • actionfromafar 2y ago
      The last paragraph is exactly what I mean. Yes, it’s weird or at least not articulated well. Even FSF believes MIT is a free license, albeit in their view, an inferior one.
    • Suzuran 2y ago
      I think they are referring to the MIT license and similar, but not wording it well. I can take something that is MIT-licensed and incorporate it into a closed-source commercial product, and I am not forced (as I would be with the GPL) to open-source my entire commercial product. They feel this is not truly "Open Source" and it is wrong to accept licenses which allow this behavior as "Open Source".
• llm_trw 2y ago
  The MIT license for one.