4 ms·
Free but not Open Source? Did I miss that?
by fivetomidnight 4mo ago
Free but not Open Source? Did I miss that?
- bmenrigh 4mo agoMini Micro seems to be built on Unity. The MiniScript portion of it is open source https://github.com/JoeStrout/miniscript https://github.com/JoeStrout/miniscript but the version packaged for use by Unity costs some money. I can't tell if the people behind MiniScript are the same people behind the Mini Micro.
- helsinkiandrew 4mo ago> Free but not Open Source? Did I miss that? The miniscript language itself is MIT License: https://github.com/JoeStrout/miniscript https://github.com/JoeStrout/miniscript The Minimicro code doesn't seem to have any license in the repository or code: https://github.com/JoeStrout/minimicro-sysdisk https://github.com/JoeStrout/minimicro-sysdisk
- tokai 4mo agoSo Open Source but not Free (Libre).
- jrmg 4mo agoFor miniscript: the Free Software Foundation considers the MIT license (which they call the ‘Expat License’ to distinguish it from the ‘X11 License’) to be ‘free’ (and GPL compatible), but not ‘copyleft’. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Expat https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Expat For minimicro-sysdisk: I am suspicious that the author just forgot to include a license. Their other repos are mostly MIT or ‘The Unlicensed (also ‘free’ but not ‘copyleft’), and some have licenses added after creation. Suspicion is not something to be legally relied on of course…
- debugnik 4mo agoThat's usually called "source available", since most people, including some governmental orgs around the world, already follow OSI's definition for "open source".
- mmmlinux 4mo agoAm I the only one that hates that programmers now have to also be lawyers?
- debugnik 4mo agoWhat do you mean now? The peak of debating the merits of varied FOSS licenses must have been 20 years ago.