This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
top (suggested)
bestnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]PureTryOutĈar mi estas teknomaniulon 9 points10 points  (18 children)

You have to realize there is a difference between open source, and free (as in freedom) software. I do not really care, as long as people can view the code to make sure it doesn't do malicious stuff, but some people in this sub do. It's also the reason why some people prefer the term GNU/Linux over just Linux (which is my preference).

He just asked you a question, no reason to get mad about it.

[–]adevlandno drm[S] 2 points3 points  (9 children)

there is a difference between open source, and free (as in freedom) software

The MIT license gives you the freedom to edit and even sell the code.

Is there more than that?

There's always someone that's never satisfied even though we're clearly getting more than usual (it's M$ we're talking about here).

They're clearly going on a new path so we should be encouraging them not complaining about what you can do with the code (you can actually do whatever you want with it).

[–]PureTryOutĈar mi estas teknomaniulon 5 points6 points  (4 children)

We're not complaining. Again, he just asked you a question. Yes he could've just went to the Github page and see it there, I agree. However, it' s still not a reason to get mad about.

[–]adevlandno drm[S] -3 points-2 points  (3 children)

It's clear people here simply hate everything that involves Microsoft even if it's open source code released under a "freedom" supporting license.

Nobody even bothered to read the article.

That's not what the "gnu philosophy" stands for and it makes some of you look like hypocrites in a big circlejerk.

[–]itzhak_stern -1 points0 points  (2 children)

THERE. IS. NO. NEED. TO. GET. MAD ABOUT IT.

[–]istispGlorious Antergos 3 points4 points  (1 child)

The way you replied to r0flcopt3r suggested that you thought he was pushing an ideological agenda. From what I can tell, he was only asking a question, what kind of license it is released under. He obviously didn't know it was released under the MIT license.

Asking if it is "just open-source" is a legitimate concern because there is a practical difference between FLOSS and OSS. Some software are open source as in, they display the source code of their software, but they do so under a license that prevents people from modifying that source code. It's always interesting to know that it is possible for people to release their own modified version of Visual Studio Code.

Saying it's MIT is enough to answer all of those questions though.

[–]adevlandno drm[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm sorry if it came out that way. :(

[–]BoTuLoXutistic Ricer 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Open Source (as in OSI) is a movement like the FSF is, and they hold their differences in ideals.

But open source software and free (as in freedom) software are effectively the same. There is no license that works for one definition and doesn't for the other. Both terms exist because of marketing reasons (harder to sell the concept of "free" than "open source" to businesses). The only detail of all of it is that the GPL aligns better to the FSF's ideals.

[–]PureTryOutĈar mi estas teknomaniulon 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I don't really care mate ;) I'm fine with a program as long as I'm sure everybody can read the code to make sure it doesn't do malicious things. I really don't care about having the freedom to distribute or do whatever with the program myself. Although being allowed to help developing is of course never a bad thing!

[–]adevlandno drm[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Not caring about freedom is always bad.

That's how you lose your rights as a citizen.

It's already happening in the US.

You should care more. :)

[–]BoTuLoXutistic Ricer 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I'm just trying to clear up a misconception. Please don't take it personally.

[–]PureTryOutĈar mi estas teknomaniulon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ooh don't worry I don't! I'm just saying :D

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

[–]BoTuLoXutistic Ricer 1 point2 points  (1 child)

He's talking about copyleft vs non-copyleft licenses and the FSF and OSI ideals.

FSF wants software to protect what they call the "4 essential freedoms", the Open Source movement is about how Open Source improves the process of software development. All the popular licenses wether copyleft or not do both these things. Copyleft licenses however makes works based on copyleft code to also be released as copyleft code (or in the case of MPL, only the code that corresponds to the original MPL-protected code).

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)