Technology

61632 readers

4463 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

320

Why Mark Zuckerberg wants to redefine open source so badly (www.zdnet.com)

submitted 14 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 7 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

No open source license type where corporations still have to pay?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (2 children)

No, because that would no longer be open in the open source sense.

It's either open for everyone, or it isn't open.

Edit: sorry to whoever doesn't like it, but it's literally how "open source" is defined

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

And that’s literally what the article says lol I don’t know why you were downvoted.

Emily Omier, a well-regarded open-source start-up consultant, emphasized that open source is a binary standard set by the Open Source Initiative (OSI), not a spectrum. "Either you're open source, or you are not.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

The binary mentioned is different. Omier was saying either you share all the source code, or it's not open-source. You don't get to retain some proprietary blob for an essential component and still say the whole app is open-source. Pricing is an entirely different question.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

No, software being free as in beer is not a necessary condition for being open-source. And if the code is not free as in beer, the pricing model can be whatever the hell you want, as long as the code is shared when the user is licensed. That can mean an expensive license for enterprise use coexisting with a free license for (say) researchers and individual devs.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

No, not in the way GP wrote. You're not allowed to have your license discriminate between users, so you'd have to sell your software to everyone, not just big companies.

Either no one pays, or everyone pays.