• grue@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You can still view the source code. That’s what open source is.

    No, it’s not. It only counts if it provides the four freedoms listed here:

    • The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
    • The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
    • The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
    • The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

    And before you say “but that’s the definition of ‘Free Software’, not ‘Open Source’,” even the latter, misguided as it is, at least still requires freedom 0!

    • hypelightfly@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Those are definitions for free software not open source. Open source does not mean free and open source (FOSS). This is still open source (you can see the code) , it’s no longer FOSS (you can’t freely use the code).