Re:Sunsetting Atom
by trasz on Wednesday June 08, 2022 @05:07PM
(#31674179)
The project is not open source. The code it releases is open source. There's no contradiction - it's perfectly normal for a company to release their code under an open license; Chromium is another example of this. It's technically open, but for almost every practical purpose it could be closed and it would make no difference.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Sunsetting Atom
by Beltalowda on Wednesday June 08, 2022 @05:49PM
(#31674774)
What you're trying to say is "I don't like the way it's run". Okay, fine. That doesn't make it "not open source".
I have projects where I don't accept patches. "It works for me" and I just don't feel like reviewing patches. Is that not "open source" in spite of being MIT licenced?
"I can do with the code what I want" is the entire and only point of Open Source and Free Software, something Stallman and many others have been pretty clear about over the years.
>"I can do with the code what I want" is the entire and only point of Open Source
This is not true at all, as evidenced by http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral.... You are mistaking Open Source for public domain.