oPeN sOuRcE
Discussion
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 😁
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.
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
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.
There you go
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.
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
Lol. Gfy.
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.
They're using Commons Clause iirc, so not open source by any definition.
Even if it was open source, it wouldn't mean they have to accept contributions.
No need to beg them to merge your contributions.
If it were open source, you could just fork it, modify it and distribute your modded version.