3 ms·
So the source is open, it’s just not free. (I don’t want to sound like I agree with Stallman. I’m just trying to clarify definitions.)
by evincarofautumn 12y ago
So the source is open, it’s just not free.
(I don’t want to sound like I agree with Stallman. I’m just trying to clarify definitions.)
- scott_karana 12y agoWell, the source is only "open" to subscribers: it's in a private Github repository. Stop paying, and you stop getting access to it, and it's illegal to publish even for perusal.
- rvkennedy 12y agoExactly: the source is "open" to paying subscribers, just as the source to... just about any closed source software anywhere, can be seen if you buy a licence to see it. It fits NO definition of OS that I'm aware of.
- evincarofautumn 12y agoOh, I was mistaken. I thought it was available for anyone to browse, and you just couldn’t use it unless you bought a license.
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y agoIt's not "open-source" under the usual definition. It's "shared-source". To be fair, this is a term invented by Microsoft and only used by them, but I think it's accurate.