this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2024
23 points (96.0% liked)

Linux

5339 readers
241 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 week ago (1 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 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] Lemongrab@lemmy.one 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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.