• jetA
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s not Libre software. It’s source available, which is great for a commercial product, allowing people to compile it themselves, but the license is revocable at any time.

    It’s not contributing to the open source ecosystem, so it’s not part of the libre environment.

    It’s a good thing, I’m glad it exists, and I’m excited to see it spur libre development in the same vein. But it is not open source as the term is commonly used.

    • folkrav@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I will never forget whoever decided it would be a good idea to conflate “FOSS” and “open-source” to mean the same fucking thing, and to have to refer to software that has open source code “source available”. I see this exact fucking discussion going on at the very minimum once a week…

      Edit: I know it’s a common misconception. My point is that it’s a misconception because of the term choice. There’s a reason we have to explain it over and over and over again.