• peregus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    The definition of the worlds open source seems to me that the source is readable by everyone. If you mean something different like @[email protected] said, then that’s something else.

    • Lemongrab@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      That is usually referred to as “source available” and doesnt fall into the category of open source.

    • chebra@mstdn.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      @peregus why do you think so? My view is backed by the two official definitions from OSI and FSF, plus the wording of specific licenses. Your definition is backed by… linguistics? While ignoring the second (open cage) meaning of “open”? Quite strange narrow definition, don’t you think? And at odds with everyone who has been doing open-source for decades.