• kadup@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Not really. Open source isn’t synonymous with libre or free software.

    I can have software that is protected via extremely restrict commercial licenses and open source. In fact, there are many examples.

      • kadup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        No, that’s the OpenSource Initiative’s definition for what they endorse.

        Open source quite literally means the source is open. That’s it. Otherwise there would be absolutely no point in having terms like FOSS or libre or whatever else.

        They’re not OSI approved, but that’s about it. Ubuntu is not FSF approved, and guess what, it’s still a GNU operating system. We are not forced to follow definitions from specific orgs.

        • baduhai@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          You can follow whatever you think is best. I’ll stick to and evangilise what I view to be the correct definition of open source.

          Ubuntu is not FSF approved, and guess what, it’s still a GNU operating system

          What makes Ubuntu a GNU operating system isn’t the fact that it’s FSF approved, it’s the fact that it uses GNU tools.

          • kadup@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            What makes Ubuntu a GNU operating system isn’t the fact that it’s FSF approved, it’s the fact that it uses GNU tools.

            Exactly. You’re precisely right. Which is why:

            What makes software open source isn’t the fact that it’s OSI approved, it’s the fact that the source is open for scrutiny.

            • baduhai@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              What? The two things have nothing to do with each other. A GNU operating system doesn’t need to be open source or have its source code available anywhere. A GNU operating system just means it uses GNU tools.

              You could write a new kernel from scratch, never distribute a single character of the source code, make an operating system with your new kernel along with GNU tools, and even sell your operating system, which the GPL allows for. The GNU tools would still be open source, sure, but your operating system would be neither open source, nor have its source code completely available.