Is it weird
No. You’re fine.
Well put me in a dress and call me Sheryl. Never knew that the “accepted definitions” were really that close. Thanks!
I knew that some definitions of OSS were really basic (as in “as long as there is source at some point”) but I didn’t know that the OSI definition was so close to the idea of “free software”.
I found the read about the history and similarities & differences quite interesting: https://web.archive.org/web/20180915200609/http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
I think you got that one wrong.
Open source is not a license. Open source literally just means that the source is openly available. It does not include the right for you to reuse or change any of the source.
That’s why most of the time, people are talking about “Free Open Source Software” (FOSS) when they think of openly licensed source code.
That’s why you can publish your project on e.g. Github (= open source) but if you don’t add a license statement, your work is still protected by an “all rights reserved copyright”. (= not free)
Anyhow, I would not necessarily deem a project OSS, just because the used language is readable by default. To me, OSS needs at least the developers intention to make it openly available.
Thanks! You are right. “Swapping vs. replacing” is not the same usecase.
It will most likely come back due to EU legislation.
Just to be clear: Eating bugs is not vegan. Vegans eat plants.
That is kind an off logic. Sounds more like an excuse for not taking action than anything else. I bet you can dismantle your arguments on your own in no time of you try.
Thank you for explaining this so eloquently! Couldn’t have put it better. 👌
Meat and animal products in general.
Linked to quite a lot of health problems, kills the climate and billons of innocent individuals are dying needlessly in the process.
While the whole world is beeing like