4 ms·
"Free as in as long as you don't try to compile your own." If you think that addresses the issues at play, you haven't been paying attention to both sides of t
by technomancy 13y ago
"Free as in as long as you don't try to compile your own."
If you think that addresses the issues at play, you haven't been paying attention to both sides of the debate.
- sliverstorm 13y agoOpen source does not mean free to build & use. It means open source.
- LukeShu 13y agoOpen source means these things: http://opensource.org/osd http://opensource.org/osd "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:" Without being able to build and use it, the "derived works" section can't be met.
- sliverstorm 13y agoThat reads more like the GPL than a definition of what open source means. What, then, do you call code that provides the source but does not allow you free distribution of both the source & binaries? "The source is open but it's not open source"?
- wmf 13y agoUsually that's called shared source.
- technomancy 13y agoThat's exactly what I'm saying; open source misses the point. This is a free software issue.