4 ms·
People who use it claim it's Open Source
by mirzap 10mo ago
People who use it claim it's Open Source
- xigoi 10mo agoThey are using “open source” as a generic descriptor, not as the unregistered trademark of the OSI.
- mirzap 10mo agoYes, and that is the problem. That "descriptor" is not correct. The correct descriptor is "source available".
- xigoi 10mo agoThe descriptor is correct. The source is available to you, free of charge, and you can do anything with it as long as you extend the same rights to your users.
- mirzap 10mo agoYes, I agree that "source available" is an accurate description. Unlike "Open Source" licenses, which have no restrictions, "O'saasy" does not allow you to do "anything" you want. Adding a clause like "but you can't compete with us" makes it incompatible with OSS licenses. I am fine with licensing your code as you wish, but I will always oppose attempts to redefine the widely understood and established meaning of "open source" that has been in place for over 30 years. You don't get to change its definition.
- xigoi 10mo agoThe “established” meaning has in fact been deliberately created by megacarporations like Microsoft so they can exploit free labor by volunteers to make money without lifting a finger. Look at who is sponsoring the OSI.
- mirzap 10mo agoEver heard of the Free Software Foundation? Richard Stallman? They are pioneers of free software I'm talking about. Please don't embarrass yourself with your conspiracy theory nonsense. Besides that, Microsoft contributed to Open Source more than any other company.