251
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2024
251 points (99.2% liked)
Open Source
31086 readers
771 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
- !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
- !libre_software@lemmy.ml
- !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml
- !linux@lemmy.ml
- !technology@lemmy.ml
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the source code of the Java version open for modding?
Not really. There is de-obfusication headers which They officially provide which can make decompiled source readable for the purpose of making mods, You're not allowed to redistribute any of the code.
I'm not sure if the source is available or not. I remember some talk about it a few years back, but I don't know what happened. Either way, just because source code is available does not mean it is open source. When I say open source I mean libre.
I usually use open source to mean open source and free as in lunch, but in this case I assume kovarex is talking about open source but commercial and restrictively licensed. I could be wrong.
Open source is synonymous with "free software" as in freedom. Source available is likely what you're talking about.
If this were true, we wouldn't need the term "FOSS."
You're talking about the OSD presumably. Stallman's definition differs, and I think his terminology seems to be widely used.
I disagree with a few points of that article.
You do too by using the term FOSS instead of FLOSS,
The FSF and OSI agree on many of the licenses they approve as being free/open. If you can tell me of any notable differences that aren't a matter of one of them not commenting on a particular license yet then I'd be open to change my opinion on it.
Regardless, even if you believe the OSD and FSF's definition of libre software differ, merely having the source available is not enough to meet what the OSD defines as open source. Which is what this conversation was originally about.
The conversation was not originally about OSD; I had just mentioned it.
Touchée. But FLOSS the term only emphasises even more: there's open source software, and then there's free/libre open source software -- note the distinction.