this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2024
174 points (94.4% liked)
Open Source
31408 readers
84 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not proprietary, but source-available.
Ergo, proprietary.
edit: my prior comment on the difference between fauxpen source and true free software licenses. It's not just theoretical or "purist"
Ok sure, but most people associate proprietary with closed-source. What's wrong with just saying source-available (instead of open-source)? Calling this proprietary just leads to confusion.
Because it gives the wrong impression that it is not proprietary, just like how you are making this exact mistake.
Because it's not really about the "availability" of source code, but more about what you can actually do with the source code. If you don't have the four freedoms it's not free software.
Well free software isn't the same thing as open-source software