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

• 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

      • gloriousspearfish@feddit.dk ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Exactly.

        source
      • tabular@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I can’t imagine the downvoting being except a disagreement with that word usage. Strictly speaking words do not have definitions which are “true” in some innate sense - they have usages which are popular or unpopular among different groups of people.

        The term “open source” without any context describes “source” being “open” - as clear as mud. With context that describes a range of licenses and the disagreement is in which licenses that includes.

        source

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

        This guy is deliberately being malicious

        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

      • gloriousspearfish@feddit.dk ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        No I am using the term for how it was originally used, back in the free software movement days in the 70s and 80s.

        Open source means nothing more than the source beeing open for all to see. What your are describing we called Free Software or later FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) but the open source part is redundant in that acronym.

        Also some started using Libre instead of Free, as Free sometimes are confused with Gratis. That is where the expression Free as in Freedom cones from.

        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

      • gloriousspearfish@feddit.dk ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        You are cherry-picking quite a bit in that Wikipedia article. There is also a whole section discussing the confusion between the terms open source, free and libre.

        I would venture that the most commonly understood definition of the term is that open source software simply means what it says, that the source code is openly available. And nothing more.

        Free or libre software expresses the intention you describe explicitly, that the recipient is allowed to share and modify the software. Thus removing ambiguity.

        Open Source is indeed a term existing for many years, probably a lot longer than you are thinking about. Trying to redefine that as meaning anything more than what is says is what is causing confusion.

        source
    • jack@monero.town ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

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

      source

      • gloriousspearfish@feddit.dk ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I agree, it is much more clear. I do like Free also, but it is confusing in English.

        source
      • tabular@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I prefer the term libre (free software, usually say software freedom) but there is a related disagreement regarding Copyleft being more or less libre (GPL vs MIT.

        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