News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on /story/34755352. Parent comment

Re: by pabs3 on Sunday February 12, 2023 @09:43AM (#34763122)
This is incorrect, by no means does the Open Source Definition require that source code be open for viewing by the public, only by recipients of the software.

https://opensource.org/osd

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re: by Dalewyn on Sunday February 12, 2023 @10:21AM (#34763458)
I never specified public viewing, nor does any code require the blessings of "Open Source Initiative" or their "Open Source Definition" to be open source code.

Open source code is simply source code that is open. Nothing more and nothing less.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re: by pabs3 on Monday February 13, 2023 @01:02AM (#34770630)
The word "open" in your custom definition of "open source" is quite vague, open to whom and open in what ways?

The OSI says those should be "whoever receives a copy of the binaries" and "open to read/run/modify/distribute for original/modified versions".

The OSI definition is much more useful to me as a software user and programmer than any other definition I have seen.

[ Parent | on HN ]