• JackbyDev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    As long as we don’t call them free, libre, or open source I don’t care. We shouldn’t make the terminology any more confusing for those.

    • toastal
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      There’s limited vocab to choose from & source available isn’t an appealing one

      • Ferk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Yeah, it definitely is more appealing from a marketing perspective.

        I do understand why some projects might wanna use the term, it’s to their advantage to be associated with “open source” even if the source code itself has a proprietary license.

        The problem is that then it makes it harder / more confusing to check for actually openly licensed code, since then it’s not clear what term to use. Already “free software” can be confused with “free as in free beer”.

        • toastal
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Right. We want clear labels else they become meaningless like “boost immune system”. There probably is something that can fix the phrasing when someone finds it, but it also must not be poisoned by those going too hard into free software as a lifestyle or corporations looking to circumvent the premise. What it should be called tho, I don’t know.

      • JackbyDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        It doesn’t really roll off the tongue, I get it, but it’s the best and most widely used term for software whose source is available to view but not modify and/or redistribute.