Re:Open-Source Washing
by QuiDortDine on Monday August 28, 2023 @01:03AM
(#37289964)
Yes, I don't know how one can be able to cite sources yet be so ill-informed. This article probably doesn't mean anything to anyone. Open source means you get the source, that's it. OSI is a good reference, but it's not the boss of definitions.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
No, open source doesn't just mean that you get the source. This is the open source definition, the only commonly used definition used in the software world:
The first sentence says:
> Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:
In particular, all commercial usage must be allowed, otherwise, it is not open source.
Re:Open-Source Washing
by lucasfcosta on Monday August 28, 2023 @01:10AM
(#37290011)
I appreciate the input, even though I don't necessarily agree.
Indeed, "open source" taken at face value could be interpreted as "source available", but given the historical context, that's not what the term intends to represent.
It's because of this dissonance that I think it's important to make differences clear. Perhaps "free software" has always been a better name, but I think the community needs to come to an agreement on this.
Re:Open-Source Washing
by Denote6737 on Monday August 28, 2023 @01:53AM
(#37290276)
Free software comes with its own issues and connotations.
Most people see free and think without cost.
So is shareware free software?
Shareware is not free software, since it does not provide users the right to inspect or modify the software. It is also not freeware, since some or all of its features are not available free of charge.