3 ms·
The author has seemed oblivious to the difference in past discussions - to the point of deleting issues asking for the description to be changed (https://github
by milliams 2y ago
The author has seemed oblivious to the difference in past discussions - to the point of deleting issues asking for the description to be changed (https://github.com/Dokploy/dokploy/issues/82 https://github.com/Dokploy/dokploy/issues/82 - unfortunately not archived on Wayback).
The fact they're still advertising it as "Open source", even now is astonishing and are clearly just using it as a marketing point and are not interested in it in reality.
- therealpygon 2y agoAs with many companies that claim to be “open source” while having excessively restrictive licenses and sometimes not even sharing source.
- diggan 2y agoI think once we let Facebook/Meta get away with calling Llama "Open Source" and seemingly no one bats an eye, we kind of lost the battle about what "Open Source" means. It's not talking about something being available for you without signing an agreement, nor is it actually about source code, but it seems to basically be synonymous with "Freeware" these days.
- XajniN 2y agoDoes someone have a legal authority over the term “open source”?