this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2025
92 points (93.4% liked)

Technology

68495 readers
5033 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
92
Open-Source is Just That (vale.rocks)
submitted 1 day ago by excel24@feddit.org to c/technology@lemmy.world
29 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ambitiousslab@lemmy.ml 45 points 1 day ago (13 children)

I agree with parts about entitlement. The expectation of support and treatment of open source software as if it was proprietary is a real problem.

But, the authour makes a similar mistake - they conflate open source software with source-available (proprietary) software. As an example, I strongly disagree with this part:

When software is open-source, it is open-source, not necessarily free and open-source (FOSS), and even if it is FOSS, it might still have a restrictive licence. The code being available in and of itself does not give you a right to take it, modify it, or redistribute it.

If you replace it with this version, I am happy:

When software is source-available, it is source-available, not necessarily open source or free and open-source (FOSS). The code being distributed under a source available license does not give you a right to take it, modify it, or redistribute it.

I think it's really important that we keep a clear delineation between free/open source software on one side, and source-available (proprietary software) on the other.

A lot of companies are trying to co-opt and blur the meaning of the term so they can say "seeing the source was always the point, none of the other freedoms mattered", in order to sell you proprietary licenses.

Open source gives you the right to take, modify and redistribute it. Source available does not. And that's ok, just please don't blur the terms together.

even if it is FOSS, it might still have a restrictive license

Likewise, this is definitionally untrue. The whole purpose of FOSS is to give you the four freedoms.

[–] snowfalldreamland@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Maybe it sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory but with how often people make this "mistake" i really believe it's a deliberate effort to undermine the meaning of open-source

[–] sfxrlz@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think many people fail to wrap their head around the concept since almost everywhere else nothing is really free.

[–] entropicdrift 2 points 1 day ago

Yeah, freedom has become vanishingly rare

load more comments (10 replies)