TL;DR: Competitors in integrating with Atlassian are not allowed to incorporate code after the change because they used it in free add-ons, which caused the official integration (a paid add-on that is the sole source of funding) to be labeled a scam by a review in late August.

Plus, the thing was never really open source anyway:

draw.io is also closed to contributions, as it's not open source. We follow a development process compliant with our SOC 2 Type II process. We do not have a mechanism where we can accept contributions from non-staff members.

[–] peregus@lemmy.world 16 points 3 weeks ago (12 children)

Open source means that the source code is...open, that everyone can view and use it, it doesn't mean that everyone can contribute to it. Or am I wrong?

[–] chebra@mstdn.io 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

@peregus yes, wrong. Being "open" doesn't mean just "readable". Imagine an open bird cage, not just an open book. It needs to be open to fly free.

[–] peregus@lemmy.world -3 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

The definition of the worlds open source seems to me that the source is readable by everyone. If you mean something different like @stochastic_parrot@sh.itjust.works said, then that's something else.

[–] chebra@mstdn.io 6 points 3 weeks ago

@peregus why do you think so? My view is backed by the two official definitions from OSI and FSF, plus the wording of specific licenses. Your definition is backed by... linguistics? While ignoring the second (open cage) meaning of "open"? Quite strange narrow definition, don't you think? And at odds with everyone who has been doing open-source for decades.

[–] Lemongrab@lemmy.one 6 points 3 weeks ago

That is usually referred to as "source available" and doesnt fall into the category of open source.

load more comments (10 replies)