3 ms·
? Do you know what “source” means in open source? Like, what is the source of the binary? It’s the code. That’s the source in open source.
by Otek 5mo ago
? Do you know what “source” means in open source? Like, what is the source of the binary? It’s the code. That’s the source in open source.
- freedomben 5mo agoI don't disagree, but it is perfectly acceptable per the MIT license, which is an OSI approved license. MIT doesn't require source distribution with the binary (which is why from the developer perspective, it's a more "permissive" license)
- clickety_clack 5mo agoThe license describes what users are allowed to do with the source code, it doesn’t (and shouldn’t) define what a creator has to do to make the source code open.
- freedomben 5mo agoThen it sounds like you're philosophically opposed to copyleft license like GPL. That's ok, we can agree to (in my case vehemently) disagree, but your philosophy is inconsistent with the commonly accepted definition of "open source" such as OSI's OSD[1][2] [1]: https://opensource.org/licenses https://opensource.org/licenses [2]: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
- clickety_clack 5mo agoI think you completely misunderstand me. I don’t have any opinion on GPL, but in the links you shared, even OSI considers the license to be separate from the definition of open source “Open source licenses are licenses that comply with the Open Source Definition”. You can use a license that open source projects use (ie MIT), and still keep the source closed, or you can write one that puts obligations on you if you want. In fact, you can use or write pretty much any license you want if you own the copyright.