this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2024
417 points (98.6% liked)

Open Source

33213 readers
386 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

For me it is the note taking/PKMS tool SilverBullet.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ayam@lemm.ee 22 points 11 months ago (1 children)
  • RiMusic basically saves me about 6 bucks a month from spotify subscription lol
  • Droid-Ify much better interface to F-Droid
  • Grayjay newpipe but with much better ui, worth nothing is developed by louis rousmann
  • NixOS not necessarily improve my daily life but i've been having a really good time trying it recently
[–] Interstellar_1@pawb.social 6 points 11 months ago (3 children)
[–] ayam@lemm.ee 10 points 11 months ago

Actually you're kinda right, their own license doesn't allow commercial redistribution (kinda similar with CC:NC) which make them not open source. I personally have no problems with that though.

[–] isthereanydeal@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It is open source. But the license is not foss at the moment. They expresed their desire to make something that send revenue to creators

[–] chebra@mstdn.io 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

@isthereanydeal therefore it's not open source. See for something to be called "open source" it needs a bit more than just for the code to be readable. The only people who define open source as source readable are the people who don't want to create open source software.

[–] isthereanydeal@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

There's a clear difference between open source and free open source software. It is open source but the licence is not "free". Not entirely at least

[–] chebra@mstdn.io -1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

@isthereanydeal Nope. That distinction only appeared when big companies kinda became afraid of open source software, so they wanted to redefine the term, create some confusion, corrupt it..

[–] isthereanydeal@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 11 months ago

You may have a point but there's a difference anyway

[–] heyoni@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Did you unselect your upvote?

[–] chebra@mstdn.io 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

@heyoni I'm commenting from mastodon, I don't even see any upvotes. Someone just started downvoting me because they ran out of arguments 🤷‍♂️

[–] heyoni@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

That must be why. On lemmy, like reddit you automatically upvote your own comments. Yours was at 0 probably cause mastodon doesn't do that.

[–] n0x0n@feddit.de 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Open source is when the source code is available.

Free software is when the source is available and the license lets you exercise your 4 freedoms.

[–] chebra@mstdn.io -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

@n0x0n You are wrong though: https://opensource.org/osd

> Introduction
> Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code.

Literally the first sentence.

The definition you are using is being spread by the likes of Meta and Amazon.

[–] n0x0n@feddit.de 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Taking only a part of my post does not make sense in this context.

[–] chebra@mstdn.io -1 points 11 months ago

@n0x0n Providing an authoritative source which directly contradicts your statement, that does not make any sense to you? I'm sorry then.