61–70 of 93 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, because the OSI doesn’t recognize it as such.
I don't recognize the OSI as any authority to define words.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s a clear widely accepted definition https://opensource.org/osd/
This is a claim by an organization on ownership of a phrase used by humans in common speech. That doesn’t mean it’s what people mean when they say it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1) It opens just fine on my iPhone and iPad. You have to tap the text entry box. 2) iOS brought in more than 67% of the revenue last year… it’s no wonder why apps are generally higher quality https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-revenues/
The apps are generally high quality because of the limited device pool. It makes testing and making sure everything works vastly easier across the range of devices when you don't have literally thousands of possible devices to account for. Then there's the monopolistic and highly curated app store.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, because the OSI doesn’t recognize it as such.
I don't recognize the OSI as any authority to define words.
[1] https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...
Not open source. > DevilutionX is made publicly available and released under the Sustainable Use License (see LICENSE) > The source code in this repository is for non-commercial use only. If you use the source code you may not charge others for access to it or any derivative work thereof.
The source is open. “Open Source” does not mean the FLOSS-flavour of Open in conventional speech. If you want to fight that battle, sure, it’s not unreasonable, but realize that you’re pushing a sub-consensus view.
Don't get my hopes up by calling it open when you post it on HN. It's not that much to ask.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The source is open. “Open Source” does not mean the FLOSS-flavour of Open in conventional speech. If you want to fight that battle, sure, it’s not unreasonable, but realize that you’re pushing a sub-consensus view.
Is it stands, it would be rejected for inclusion in Debian and other distributions (unlike open source games) and I wouldn't be able to bring it to my software club and study it with kids, because that would be using it in a commercial setting. Don't get my hopes up by calling it open when you post it on HN. It's not that much to ask.
Would you mind elaborating on this? How is a software club a commercial setting?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The source is open. “Open Source” does not mean the FLOSS-flavour of Open in conventional speech. If you want to fight that battle, sure, it’s not unreasonable, but realize that you’re pushing a sub-consensus view.
Is it stands, it would be rejected for inclusion in Debian and other distributions (unlike open source games) and I wouldn't be able to bring it to my software club and study it with kids, because that would be using it in a commercial setting. Don't get my hopes up by calling it open when you post it on HN. It's not that much to ask.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it stands, it would be rejected for inclusion in Debian and other distributions (unlike open source games) and I wouldn't be able to bring it to my software club and study it with kids, because that would be using it in a commercial setting. Don't get my hopes up by calling it open when you post it on HN. It's not that much to ask.
> I wouldn't be able to bring it to my software club and study it with kids, because that would be using it in a commercial setting. Would you mind elaborating on this? How is a software club a commercial setting?
As such, any of these might trigger the "only for ... non-commercial ... use" clause. So folks generally just don't sweat it.
Not open source. > DevilutionX is made publicly available and released under the Sustainable Use License (see LICENSE) > The source code in this repository is for non-commercial use only. If you use the source code you may not charge others for access to it or any derivative work thereof.
The source is open. “Open Source” does not mean the FLOSS-flavour of Open in conventional speech. If you want to fight that battle, sure, it’s not unreasonable, but realize that you’re pushing a sub-consensus view.
The vast majority of projects that call themselves open source mean the open source definition as defined by the open source initiative, or something equivalent.
You might not like or recognize the OSI and that's fine, but you can't decide what people mean when they say open source.
You are the one starting the battle and I don't understand your motives.
I just searched for "open source" in a search engine, I'm getting [1,2,3] and lists of "the best open source software". And they are all using the OSD. You are at odds with Wikipedia, IBM, RedHat and with Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple [4,5,6,7,8], and with everyone else, really.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
[2] https://www.redhat.com/en/topics/open-source/what-is-open-so...
[3] https://www.ibm.com/en-en/topics/open-source
[4] https://opensource.microsoft.com/
[5] https://opensource.google/
[6] https://aws.amazon.com/fr/opensource/