3 ms·
What's more is that terms "open source" and "closed source" by themselves allow many companies (like GitHub) to sneakily evade the stigma of shelving out propri
by vezzy-fnord 13y ago
What's more is that terms "open source" and "closed source" by themselves allow many companies (like GitHub) to sneakily evade the stigma of shelving out proprietary software. After all, you can view the source, right? So it must be open source! And it technically, is, too. Even if not by the OSI definition, it still fits the criteria, because having source access is only one piece of the puzzle.
What's more is "closed source" sounds much less scary than "proprietary".
Now you might say that the same can be said for "free software". Not if you explicitly denote it as "libre" or "free as in freedom", in which case its meaning becomes unequivocal.
Terminology matters.
- jasonlotito 13y ago> After all, you can view the source, right? So it must be open source! And it technically, is, too. No. It's not. It's technically viewable source, or readable source, but it's not open, which as you know, needs to meet certain criteria. Those of us who have been around long enough know this old game. Microsoft has tried this in the past. If it doesn't pass by OSI, it's not open source, and that matters to some of us. It's also why being an "open source" company is meaningless to many of us.