3 ms·

In fact, I'd be really happy if e.g. Microsoft would "open their source", that is show the source code to Windows, even under a ultra non-permissive license a l

In fact, I'd be really happy if e.g. Microsoft would "open their source", that is show the source code to Windows, even under a ultra non-permissive license a la: "You may not use this for anything." That is proprietary software. Source code by itself is useless when you have no rights to go with it. This is why "open source" is such a sly term. Companies can very easily pull off shenanigans like in your hypothetical scenario and then hide behind the banner of "open source". They would also technically be correct, even if not abiding by the OSI. After all, it sure as hell isn't closed source! Free software, so long as you specify "libre" or "free as in freedom", is unequivocal. Bullshit like freely viewable source without distribution rights doesn't cut it. Your views are misguided, and are even potentially harmful.

lucian1900 13y ago
> This is why "open source" is such a sly term. Companies can very easily pull off shenanigans like in your hypothetical scenario and then hide behind the banner of "open source". They would be technically incorrect to do so. Microsoft tried, but they had to retreat to "shared source" because of the backlash.
morganherlocker 13y ago
There are plenty of benefits to being able to read the code without the ability to distribute it. Two things come immediately to mind: 1. Is the software secure? Are there gaping security holes riddled through the source? Think about all the times you hear about people "working on getting the project ready for open source". Often this is due to vulnerabilities that are ticking time bombs waiting to go off as soon as the security by obscurity clock runs out. 2. There may be GPL code in the source that is being used in violation of the license. I would not be at all surprised if a significant chunk of closed proprietary software is using GPL code, but no one knows because they cannot read the source. Both of these points are moot if you simply avoid proprietary software altogether RMS style, but only a tiny fraction of users are going to do that. Of course, these benefits are also the reasons why this will never happen.

lucian1900 13y ago

> This is why "open source" is such a sly term. Companies can very easily pull off shenanigans like in your hypothetical scenario and then hide behind the banner of "open source". They would be technically incorrect to do so. Microsoft tried, but they had to retreat to "shared source" because of the backlash.

morganherlocker 13y ago

There are plenty of benefits to being able to read the code without the ability to distribute it. Two things come immediately to mind: 1. Is the software secure? Are there gaping security holes riddled through the source? Think about all the times you hear about people "working on getting the project ready for open source". Often this is due to vulnerabilities that are ticking time bombs waiting to go off as soon as the security by obscurity clock runs out. 2. There may be GPL code in the source that is being used in violation of the license. I would not be at all surprised if a significant chunk of closed proprietary software is using GPL code, but no one knows because they cannot read the source. Both of these points are moot if you simply avoid proprietary software altogether RMS style, but only a tiny fraction of users are going to do that. Of course, these benefits are also the reasons why this will never happen.