@isthereanydeal therefore it’s not open source. See for something to be called “open source” it needs a bit more than just for the code to be readable. The only people who define open source as source readable are the people who don’t want to create open source software.
@isthereanydeal Nope. That distinction only appeared when big companies kinda became afraid of open source software, so they wanted to redefine the term, create some confusion, corrupt it…
It is open source. But the license is not foss at the moment. They expresed their desire to make something that send revenue to creators
@isthereanydeal therefore it’s not open source. See for something to be called “open source” it needs a bit more than just for the code to be readable. The only people who define open source as source readable are the people who don’t want to create open source software.
Open source is when the source code is available.
Free software is when the source is available and the license lets you exercise your 4 freedoms.
@n0x0n You are wrong though: https://opensource.org/osd
> Introduction
> Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code.
Literally the first sentence.
The definition you are using is being spread by the likes of Meta and Amazon.
Taking only a part of my post does not make sense in this context.
@n0x0n Providing an authoritative source which directly contradicts your statement, that does not make any sense to you? I’m sorry then.
There’s a clear difference between open source and free open source software. It is open source but the licence is not “free”. Not entirely at least
@isthereanydeal Nope. That distinction only appeared when big companies kinda became afraid of open source software, so they wanted to redefine the term, create some confusion, corrupt it…
You may have a point but there’s a difference anyway
Did you unselect your upvote?
@heyoni I’m commenting from mastodon, I don’t even see any upvotes. Someone just started downvoting me because they ran out of arguments 🤷♂️