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.
BURN@lemmy.world 1 year 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.
gloriousspearfish@feddit.dk 1 year ago
Exactly.
tabular@lemmy.world 1 year 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.
nossaquesapao@lemmy.eco.br 1 year ago
It’s quite ironic to see people getting confused over it, since part of the justifications for the creation of the “open source” term was “free software” being ambiguous.
jack@monero.town 1 year ago
This guy is deliberately being malicious
JTskulk@lemmy.world 1 year ago
There’s a reason RMS hates the term “open source”. Open source is a cheaper imitation of Free software.