Edit, I’ll rephrase that. You can fork it and do whatever, even remove the “please donate” thing, but if you distribute any spy/malware versions they have legal avenues to force it to get taken down.
As confusing as it is, if you’re to follow the generally accepted definition from the Open Source Initiative, “open-source” doesn’t just mean open source code, but also openness to modification and redistribution - what you called free, others call libre, etc. Just having an open source code, they call “source available”.
But if “You can fork it and do whatever, even remove the “please donate” thing, but if you distribute any spy/malware versions they have legal avenues to force it to get taken down”, that sounds like open source to me? You can indeed modify and redistribute it in almost any way you would like!
That’s not a free software license though. Libre software must give you the right to run, study, modify and distribute the code. It doesn’t do that to my knowledge.
Correct it does not technically fit into FOSS, however the source code is still open for review, allowing you to run, study and modify the code. The only restriction is distribution.
If your personal model is to strictly use FOSS, then this program is not for you.
However, if your model is more about the ability to make personal modification, or to study the code to verify it is not malicious or spying, then this program allows for that.
It is also worth noting this program isn’t technically free (money), but there are no checks if you actually paid. It’s up to you and your own morals to pay or not. For me, I consider it no different than an obnoxious “buy me a coffee” button - if it bugs you that much, go delete it from the code you run.
It’s open source, you just can’t fork it.
Edit, I’ll rephrase that. You can fork it and do whatever, even remove the “please donate” thing, but if you distribute any spy/malware versions they have legal avenues to force it to get taken down.
That’s not open source, it’s source-available
Sounds more like open source but not free software?
As confusing as it is, if you’re to follow the generally accepted definition from the Open Source Initiative, “open-source” doesn’t just mean open source code, but also openness to modification and redistribution - what you called free, others call libre, etc. Just having an open source code, they call “source available”.
It annoys me to no end, but it is what it is…
But if “You can fork it and do whatever, even remove the “please donate” thing, but if you distribute any spy/malware versions they have legal avenues to force it to get taken down”, that sounds like open source to me? You can indeed modify and redistribute it in almost any way you would like!
That’s not a free software license though. Libre software must give you the right to run, study, modify and distribute the code. It doesn’t do that to my knowledge.
Correct it does not technically fit into FOSS, however the source code is still open for review, allowing you to run, study and modify the code. The only restriction is distribution.
If your personal model is to strictly use FOSS, then this program is not for you.
However, if your model is more about the ability to make personal modification, or to study the code to verify it is not malicious or spying, then this program allows for that.
It is also worth noting this program isn’t technically free (money), but there are no checks if you actually paid. It’s up to you and your own morals to pay or not. For me, I consider it no different than an obnoxious “buy me a coffee” button - if it bugs you that much, go delete it from the code you run.
Exactly, I don’t want software that doesn’t respect the 4 freedoms. It makes forks impossible and still gives the developer unjustified power.