Gregory's Server@kali @gamingonlinux because public source code doesn't mean the same as open source, they can just release the source code but not allow you to do anything you want with it (but the terminology can easily be used to confuse people)
|
7 comments
@kali @gamingonlinux And then there's also the separate issue of how they're going to run the project, as "open source" itself doesn't dictate whether you need to accept contributions, how you take them, whether you listen to your community at all, etc. For example SQLite, one of the most widely used open source projects overall, does not take any code contributions from anyone (in their case it's for an OK reason), but the code is available and licensed for any use, so it's open source. @vurpo @kali @gamingonlinux OpenOffice was also like that, they almost never accepted any contributions outside Sun/Oracle employees. Because of that most linux distros actually used a fork that was more advanced (better support for MS Office formats etc). And that fork more or less became LibreOffice in the end. @kali @vurpo @gamingonlinux I think it goes a little further than that - “you can see our source, extend it, improve it, and add value to it, but it’ll still belong to us and you’ll have no rights”  @choobs @kali @vurpo @gamingonlinux That’s how I read it too. They’re after free development resources hoping to get a meal ticket from Winamp nostalgia. I think they perhaps underestimate the nouse of technically minded people.  @rejzor @vurpo @gamingonlinux i guess either as marketing strategy for people who dont look into it that much and just go "ooh open source means its better" or so people can audit the source code before installing it? also for free code contributions like someone else said. |
@vurpo @gamingonlinux oh i see now, thats so annoying
"you can see our source code.... but only if it benefits us"