Comment on Why do all these companies developing privatised software use the word "Open"? Real question.

smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• Devgard@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I’m pretty sure Anytype is finally open sourcing their code after years of it being in alpha though?

  source

  • smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Source is available to the public under their own custom licence, but you cannot use it commercially. Server side is closed. So you just know there is no malware inside and you can propose a bugfix, that’s not enough to be open source, yet they misleading call it that.

    source

    • gloriousspearfish@feddit.dk ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      If you can look at the source code it is open source.

      source

      • BURN@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Not sure why you’re being downvoted. By definition this is true.

        Visible source is still open source , but it isn’t FOSS. Not everything open source is FOSS, but everything FOSS is open source.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • MHLoppy@fedia.io ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        You seem to be using the term "open source" for what is instead commonly called "source-available", which has a distinct meaning.

        [Source-available software] includes arrangements where the source can be viewed, and in some cases modified, but without necessarily meeting the criteria to be called open-source.

        [Open-source software] is released under a license in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software and its source code to anyone and for any purpose.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        From Wikipedia:

        Open-source software (OSS) is computer software that is released under a license in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software and its source code to anyone and for any purpose.

        From Open Source Initiative:

        Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria: (…) opensource.org/osd/

        AnyType is “source available”. Open Source is a term exisiting for many years with already established precise meaning and messing it up makes much harm in a world where talking about computing morality is already messed up with the lack of words in public awareness, as computer software is very abstract and need proper terminology.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • jack@monero.town ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        This is why “open source” is garbage. Call it libre.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • tabular@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I assume you didn’t consider source code can get leaked.

        source
    • SchizoDenji@lemm.ee ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Open source =/= FOSS

      source
  • projectmoon@lemm.ee ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    They had opened sourced part of, but not all of it.

    source

    • jack@monero.town ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Then it’s 100% proprietary.

      source

      • projectmoon@lemm.ee ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I think they opened up the client, but not the server part. They also use some goofy license.

        They’re not really open source, no. But they do at least support open standards.

        source