I just downloaded and have been loving this. It loads pretty quickly, navigation is intuitive, and I'll finally stop forgetting that Nebula exists because it'll all be in my one big subscription feed.

Since I'm new to moving over to open source, I want to ask the veterans: is this as incredible as it seems right now, or is there something I'm missing?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] feyo@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You can find the open source definition here:

https://opensource.org/osd/

[–] PeachMan@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

That is a definition proposed in 2006 by one organization (The Open Source Initiative) that has little authority on the matter. Open source software in various forms existed LONG before 2006, so unfortunately they can't retcon what it has always meant. Here's some light reading on the subject, courtesy of Richard Stallman: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html

tl;dr: Don't say "open source" if you really mean FOSS.

This is the "Open Source" community, not the "FOSS" community. If you're going to hang around here, you should familiarize yourself with the difference between the two.

[–] feyo@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It’s the definition defined by the organization that coined the term open source.

The concept existed before then, but that hardly matters when we are talking about the specific term.

They are the authority on the matter.

I do not mean free software as Stallman means it, when I am talking about Open Source, I mean exactly what the OSI means, because that is the widely accepted form of the term.

[–] PeachMan@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You speak very confidently of things that happened long before you were born. If you actually read the article, I wouldn't have to spell this out for you. OSI was founded in 1998, and "open source" was a term coined in the 1980s.

I could form the Spaghetti Source Initiative tomorrow and claim that all open source code is now called Spaghetti Source, and you wouldn't give a shit about that, would you?

Stallman was a champion of open source software and free software (which were always two different things) long before OSI formed.

[–] feyo@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Maybe you should form that spaghetti source initiative.

You’d have some authority to speak about what spaghetti source is then.

I did not say that free software and open source software are the same thing.

You brought free software into the argument.

This license that the OP software is using probably isn’t even free software, though.

Though, I personally don’t really care too much about it.

Open source has a definition and it’s the OSI definition.

I hope any other argument you bring is an actual different definition other than „it doesn’t have any“. Because that is a net negative point to make.

If you don’t like the OSI definition I’d hope you bring a competing one. Maybe as part of your spaghetti source initiative.

[–] PeachMan@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do you need smaller words? OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE IS OLDER THAN THE OSI.

[–] feyo@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago

Too bad. Thought you’d be smarter than this. Have a nice day, smart guy.

[–] MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

It's funny that you're describing what the OSI proposes as a definition to open source as like "just a proposed definition" and what richard stallman has to say on the matter as the gospel truth. There's very clearly no consensus.