Re:Large Corporations Aren’t Going to Save the Real Linux Co...
by amelius on Sunday November 08, 2020 @05:13PM
(#25029603)
That's the OSI definition. Not everyone may agree on that definition especially as views change. Only one thing everyone agrees on is that "open source" is software for which the source code is published, and an "open source license" is a license attached to such software. This is not an extermely useful definition as far as the license is concerned, so if you want to be more specific you (and OSI) have to use more specific terms instead of the broad term "open source".
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Large Corporations Aren’t Going to Save the Real Linux Co...
by bawolff on Sunday November 08, 2020 @07:32PM
(#25030374)
I disagree, otherwise we end up down in the rabbit hole of things like microsoft's "shared source" BS. Where terms loose meaning.
Its not just OSI either, its just most explicit there. This idea is also incompatible with DFSG and FSF definitions. It simply isn't FOSS to have license terms only apply to people you like. Either its Free for everyone or you are making glorified shareware/freeware.