- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@derp.foo
- technews@radiation.party
- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@derp.foo
- technews@radiation.party
Watched Louis Rossman today, and he’s part of the team behind a new app for watching online video content - not just youtube, but nebula, peertube, twitch and more.
adblock already integrated, works amazingly with a quick test on my end - it’s an app in the Lemmy spirit
(it’s got a paid model similar to winrar, you don’t have to pay - but they do want you to - opensource and all)
It’s not open source. It’s source available.
Its open source, not free software.
Although, its basically perpetual license shareware.
No one is holding a gun to anyones head and forcing them to buy it
Indeed.
It’s not open source…but the source is open.
Not the same
Yeah but their sentence is correct:
The project is not open source (in terms of FOSS) but the source is open.
The whole license stuff is complicated enough, why are we using confusing technical terms?
Open source should be open source and free and modifyable source should be sth else
The source is literally not “open”. It doesn’t make sense to say that without referring to open source.
Saying the source is available to see, that makes sense though.
There have always been multiple definitions of “open source”. That’s why it’s always best to specify. If you mean FOSS, say FOSS. Don’t use an ambiguous term like “open source”.
Open source is not an ambiguous term. FOSS stands for “free and open source software”. It extends the word you claim is ambiguous with the word “free”. That word actually is ambiguous as in other cases it could mean “gratis” and not “it grants it’s users freedom”.
How is that better than the more established term with the very clear definition by the OSI? It’s okay if you mixed these terms up. I just don’t understand what you’re trying to do here.
Then everyone should stop using “open source” or there’s going to be arguments over what counts as open source every single time.
Well luckily there’s no arguments necessary, as we have the definition by the OSI. I actually rarely see any discussion about that, and when I do it’s mostly ill-informed comment sections.
Oh I agree completely. Open means it’s open to access, modification, and redistribution. Not closed to two of those three.
Yes, that’s what I’m saying. But as you can tell from this whole thread, it’s not going well. LOL.
So you’re saying people should stop using a word because you once misunderstood its well-defined meaning?
That’s a bit much don’t you think?
No, you’re telling people they’re wrong and it is open source. Not to use other, more precise terms. I hate to have to explain your own argument to you, but you seem to not know what you’re saying.
that’s called source-available
Exactly