@poVoq but that analogy would only work if the government was the only customer, footing the whole bill. More appropriate perspective is looking at how much would they pay if they got the same service from say Microsoft, or Slack.
@onlinepersona Are you ok? You wrote that in your book any non-obfuscated code is open-source. But on the internet, any javascript is sent to the browser as text, so as long as the javascript is non-obfuscated (according to your definition), then it fits your statement about being open-source. But that would mean you consider many proprietary codes as being open-source, which is simply wrong. Open-source is a license, it comes with rights and obligations. It can't be just about being readable.
@cyclohexane Yes, but.. For many people, the appeal of open source has nothing to do with how easy it is for corporations. So any license that limit "corporate leech" is NOT FOSS because FOSS is about having no such limits. At the same time FOSS doesn't say you can't charge money, because FOSS is NOT about restricting profit.
It is about transparency, the ability to contribute, and the community driven product as a result. It is about the ability to pick up the project if the original developer stops using it, even decades later. It’s about the ease of interfacing with said software.
That's... exactly what the FSF and OSI definitions are all about.
@BreakDecks FOSS allows you to charge money per seat. But FOSS compels you to pass the freedoms on to others, so essentially, they will pay, then they will get the software with the license which gives them the freedoms, then they can decide to share it further without any payment. It's no longer up to you. That's what freedom means.
The level of misunderstanding of OSS licenses is astounding, and dangerous.
@hauilemmy Look, I think we all agree that the maintainer financing needs to be improved, but what you are suggesting is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You would remove the whole "F" of the "FOSS" by adding restrictions on the freedoms. So we just need to keep looking, this is not it.
@hauilemmy That's like saying "I want to fly but without losing touch with the ground" - it is possible, it's just called "walking". If you "don't want someone to make money off of your invention" then that's called "proprietary".
@Faresh 1.) Making it easier to analyze. There are multiple steps in the whole process which may be hiding an exploit. The "tarball-not-same-as-git" is a clear example. Sure, reviewing will still be necessary and it will still be difficult, but it doesn't have to be as difficult as today. 2.) stop giving maintainer rights, fork instead. That's what pull requests are for. 3.) we should be careful if our critical infrastructure depends on a hobby project - either pay, or don't depend.
@isthereanydeal Nope. That distinction only appeared when big companies kinda became afraid of open source software, so they wanted to redefine the term, create some confusion, corrupt it..
@isthereanydeal therefore it's not open source. See for something to be called "open source" it needs a bit more than just for the code to be readable. The only people who define open source as source readable are the people who don't want to create open source software.
@xigoi Are you actually trying to get malware into your computer? Don't install random shiny new things without maximum skepticism. Period. Just let some other fools "test" the minefield for you. Or do a proper inspection. Executing foreign code just because it had "GPT" in the name... and acting like there was no other option... yuck!
chebra @ chebra @mstdn.io Posts 1Comments 235Joined 7 yr. ago
@poVoq but that analogy would only work if the government was the only customer, footing the whole bill. More appropriate perspective is looking at how much would they pay if they got the same service from say Microsoft, or Slack.