Programming

17450 readers

71 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

snowe@programming.dev

Ategon@programming.dev

MaungaHikoi@lemmy.nz

306

Redis is no longer OSS (fosstodon.org)

submitted 8 months ago by mesamunefire@lemmy.world to c/programming@programming.dev

113 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] cbarrick@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Source Available < Open Source < Free Software

These terms have specific definitions, where each greater term is more specific than the lesser*.

SSPL is in the "Source Available" tier.

The OSI defines the term "open source," and the FSF defines the term "free software." The number one term of open source, greater than the availability of the source code, is the freedom to redistribute.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licenses

* Free Software isn't exactly a subset of Open Source. There are a few licenses which are considered Free but not Open: the original BSD license, CC0, OpenSSL, WTFPL, XFree86 1.1, and Zope 1.0.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 3 points 8 months ago

I don't believe we should let the OSI and FSF be the absolute final say in what people consider to be open source/free software.

The number one term of open source, greater than the availability of the source code, is the freedom to redistribute.

SSPL allows this.

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Absolutely. The source of Windows is widely made available to innumerable third parties, yet I've never seen anyone claim that it's open source.

[–] cbarrick@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I didn't think the Windows source is widely available, only the compiled form.

.Net core is open source though.

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

A lot of large companies have access to the Windows source tree. It's quite common.

[–] cbarrick@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That's not "source available" because the software is not released through a source code distribution model.

Companies may have access in order to produce better drivers or handle security incidents, but those are back-room deals, not part of Windows' distribution model.

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

That's right.