Don’t forget that “open source” has a different definition than “source available”.
Comment on China is attempting to mirror the entire GitHub over to their own servers, users report
Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 months agoObviously it functionally very much is. If you wanted to keep it closed source you’d host it on your own servers or even keep it offline.
JackbyDev@programming.dev 4 months ago
Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Oh I get the theoretical difference. I’m talking about functional difference. Good luck taking China to patent court.
JackbyDev@programming.dev 4 months ago
Open source doesn’t mean source available. You simply aren’t using the term correctly.
Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 months ago
No, I’m pointing out that China doesn’t care about your dictionary.
HKayn@dormi.zone 4 months ago
No, this is not correct at all! You keep limiting yourself to the terms “open source” and “closed source”.
Any code you create, you own by copyright. Even if it is public on GitHub, you’re still the lone copyright owner and no one is legally allowed to do with it what isn’t allowed by a license.
Projects on GitHub without an open source license are only “functionally open source” to the same extent that pirated games are “functionally free”.
Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 months ago
If you want to use piracy language then this is privateering. It would be piracy except for the fact that they’ve got the backing and protection of a major country.
hark@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Copyright is an arbitrary concept. If a country decides to ignore it, then they can do what they want with a publicly-visible resource.