3 ms·

The original idea of open source or rather free software is to bmactually "own" the code in a way that you can modify it to your needs. Guess this is not the ca

by riedel 4mo ago

The original idea of open source or rather free software is to bmactually "own" the code in a way that you can modify it to your needs. Guess this is not the case here, then. But I guess also most of android falls in that category that by now. I guess we should be using better,more attributes when describing open source

paxcoder 4mo ago
[dead]
bogwog 4mo ago
"Free software" has always been a misleading term, unfortunately. Maybe calling it "Freedom software" instead would be clearer. But when you conflate free software with open source, you get confused people cheerleading their own abuse. Android is probably the worst offender here. Google Chrome, VSCode are others that come to mind.
miki123211 4mo ago
There's at least: source available - whether you can read the code open source - whether you can run (a modified version of) the code on some piece of hardware you own open hardware - whether the hardware they sell you lets you run modified versions of their code open contribution - whether they want your modifications free software - whether your modifications have to be open source too If it's at least source available, it can have any combination of these.
- nwah1 4mo ago
  open hardware to me means that you have access to all of the specifications for building the hardware. Things like when the laptop company Framework posts github repos full of CAD models. Or, initiatives like RISC V. And, alongside that, there's also open firmware. Unlocked hardware is maybe what I would call hardware that enables swapping out the software. Although, historically, we didn't even need a term for that, because that was the default aside from outliers like Apple.
- JacobKfromIRC 4mo ago
  I think your definition of "free software" is too strict, otherwise public domain software would not be free software
- yencabulator 4mo ago
  Your definition of free software conflicts with the FSF's: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicen... https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
functionmouse 4mo ago
The idea of free software, yes, is to own the code in a way that you can modify it to your needs. The idea of "open source" as a mantra is to confuse and muddle the ideas of free software in order to subvert the ideologists in that camp into supporting and furthering the goals of billionaire corporations. "Open source" as a calling card is intended to kill free software.

by riedel 4mo ago

paxcoder 4mo ago

[dead]

bogwog 4mo ago

"Free software" has always been a misleading term, unfortunately. Maybe calling it "Freedom software" instead would be clearer. But when you conflate free software with open source, you get confused people cheerleading their own abuse. Android is probably the worst offender here. Google Chrome, VSCode are others that come to mind.

miki123211 4mo ago

There's at least: source available - whether you can read the code open source - whether you can run (a modified version of) the code on some piece of hardware you own open hardware - whether the hardware they sell you lets you run modified versions of their code open contribution - whether they want your modifications free software - whether your modifications have to be open source too If it's at least source available, it can have any combination of these.

nwah1 4mo ago
open hardware to me means that you have access to all of the specifications for building the hardware. Things like when the laptop company Framework posts github repos full of CAD models. Or, initiatives like RISC V. And, alongside that, there's also open firmware. Unlocked hardware is maybe what I would call hardware that enables swapping out the software. Although, historically, we didn't even need a term for that, because that was the default aside from outliers like Apple.
JacobKfromIRC 4mo ago
I think your definition of "free software" is too strict, otherwise public domain software would not be free software
yencabulator 4mo ago
Your definition of free software conflicts with the FSF's: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicen... https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

functionmouse 4mo ago

The idea of free software, yes, is to own the code in a way that you can modify it to your needs. The idea of "open source" as a mantra is to confuse and muddle the ideas of free software in order to subvert the ideologists in that camp into supporting and furthering the goals of billionaire corporations. "Open source" as a calling card is intended to kill free software.