• BonerMan@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Uhhh… I think you misunderstood, or maybe i did (asking for confirmation) they changed the license to apache for forbidding others from selling their code and still having it open source.

    • tabular@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 minutes ago

      It seems “open source” means different things for different people.

      If you could see the code but were not allowed to redistribute it then I’d call it “source-available”… but you can redistribute the code, in this unusual case.

      Forbidding reselling to any degree makes it “non-free” (as in freedom), which is the important part. The term “open source” was created to speak about “free software” without the moral or political aspects of user freedom.