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.
Login to reply
Replies (5)
That’s a new trick! Call it source and put restrictive licenses and don’t allow outside contributions 😁
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.
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.