oPeN sOuRcE
oPeN sOuRcE
Login to reply
Replies (31)
it will take a while but people will figure out that 90% of wallets and hardware options are grifts or security nightmares *cough* biometrics
There’s needs to be a clearer distinction for degrees of open source I think… unless of course they already exist and I just don’t know them.
I guess “source viewable” is one I hear often. But there also needs to be a “closed development, but open code” version I think. Like just “open code” or something maybe. I don’t know but I feel like the demands of open source projects are growing, and users expect it to be exactly a certain way, and the ecosystem is varied enough that it might be useful to have distinctions for these things.
I don’t fault them for being closed development though. But I get why people wouldn’t like it being called “open source” but then finding out they don’t allow contributions or heavily control input from outside.
That’s a new trick! Call it source and put restrictive licenses and don’t allow outside contributions 😁
* call it open source
Exactly. Even if they have good intent and just want to “own” their project, it’s going to look dishonest and make users angry.
To be fair, accepting contributions from outside folks requires a well-designed legal framework. Otherwise it's a legal mess. It could be that they just don't have it in place for folks outside the company.
Then it’s not open source
Sure.
Not this again. 🤦♂️
Lol. Gfy.
Yeap.
Definitely not a new trick, Apple has had Public Source for decades. I was going to suggest forking it and building it yourself, but there's a proprietary library for the fingerprint reader. 🤔 Maybe Blocks can at least reproduce the build, though I'm not sure how reassuring it would be if there were a 3rd party blob.
This is what you meant ?
Yeah, a fork wouldn't be able to build and flash new firmware.
Rekt
Didn't you "test the durability" of one? Maybe the fingerprint reader has a Linux driver.
There you go
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
TL;DR open source is a confusing term, free software is better. Free as in libre, not necessarily free as in gratis. There are four fundamental freedoms for software to be considered free.
It might be open source, just not free software
SQLite is open source, right….?
It also does not accept contributions also.
Open source defined by the Open Source Initiative does not include the right to force maintainers to accept your contribution.
That’s called “open contribution”
Ok, try to reproduce this 😄
note1wlfzc37cvnmxthah6jyflpl0l5mqg703uz60gn8f0v20n5gtfurqa5as00
Yeah, not claiming it’s open source, but also open source does not mean contributions need to be accepted
People will think twice before reporting security vulnerabilities. Mentality of somebody who wants to get hacked.
Sir! If your product is 90%+ closed and you can’t do with it anything, I guess you shouldn’t call it open at all! OPEN miss used as fuck right now! If you have open source then take bitcoin example! Don’t confuse people with your corporate fiat mindset to attract and sell your shit!
That's much much better than encouraging people to contribute and then impose a million requirements and after 6 months to not merge their patches.
Confused is not the worst outcome. It brings the possibility of thought, and even knowledge-seeking.
"Free Software" does not confuse.
"Free software" means ad-supported, tracker-infested garbage from an app store, to normies.
"Freedom Tech" is my favourite term, but "Open Source" is #2.
I like "open source" in most every day situations as a dev but when the discussion gets into rights and licenses then the actual meaning of the words becomes much more important
That's true, but what we think "free software" means and what normies think "free software" means are not the same.
This is not going to get better. Please just confuse them instead!
It's unfortunate that gratis and libre share the same word in the english language
Yeah, just send them email or post it on here and maybe you will get response😁
