this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2024
22 points (95.8% liked)

Linux

5232 readers
106 users here now

A community for everything relating to the linux operating system

Also check out !linux_memes@programming.dev

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Easily install your favourite browsers on Fedora Atomic Desktops, Silverblue, Kinoite, uBlue, Bazzite, Aurora, Bluefin, Secureblue etc.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Lemongrab@lemmy.one 1 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Source available is closed source by the OSI definition, which is what is widely used and understood. The "closed" in closed source doesnt only refer to source visibility but also the freedoms upheld by open source.

[–] dev_null@lemmy.ml 1 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

I am not aware of any definition of closed source published by OSI.

[–] Lemongrab@lemmy.one 1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

Since it is source available, it isnt open source and therefore closed source.

Edit: we obviously have different definitions. I did not mean to argue over semantics. I would personally never trust a browser with proprietary code, even it is source available.

[–] dev_null@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Fair enough. Yeah, I never thought of open and closed source as two exclusive options, but two of many.

I myself publish an application which isn't open source, but I publish the source code, as I believe my users have the right to know what runs on their computer, and have the freedom to audit, modify, and compile their own builds if they so wish. But I don't want someone to take and resell my application. I have yet to encounter someone calling my app closed source, but I can see how someone could.