3 ms·
>It is open-source! No, it's not. Please read number 5, it might enlighten you to what people colloquially consider open source, which didn't have a dictionary
by DetroitThrow 2y ago
>It is open-source!
No, it's not. Please read number 5, it might enlighten you to what people colloquially consider open source, which didn't have a dictionary definition until technical people started using this definition: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
>And the fact, people on here don't know that shows people on here don't know the difference.
..What? Do you know what OSS vs FOSS is?
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y agoOSD is god and gets to prescribe what is and is not open source? Says who?
- DetroitThrow 2y agoThis doesn't match the Webster's definition either. If your response to that is "there are no gods anyways" then you've earned yourself a chuckle.
- maleldil 2y agoThe whole idea is that we need a definition that everyone agrees With. The OSD is what the software community at large agreed, so any licences that claim to be open-source are compared to that.