@BrodieOnYoutube @distrotube also, there are 2 definitions of open source. The original definition as pointed out in the video that is synonymous with free software from Open Source Initiative opensource.org, and the one that governs open source definition now from opensource.com.

So it is in fact open source, as dictated by the market definition from opensource.com, backed by Microsoft, Red Hat, and various proprietary moguls.

Remember these? gnu.org/philosophy/free-softwa
gnu.org/philosophy/open-source

Follow

@BrodieOnYoutube @distrotube therefore I argue that open source was always a divisive term. It suggests freedom as being you can see, modify and enhance code. You can see this is not the case. The fact that opensource.com has the definition hidden away by another link that overshadows where the definition can be found, is very reflective of the true nature of the term.

So Vivaldi is open sourced. You can see, modify, enhance. It is not free software. Open source is a dangerous term.

@BrodieOnYoutube @distrotube just 5-10 years ago, one could find wars in mailing lists and IRC about open source x free software. Majority argument would be "they are the same thing". If they are the same thing, why supplant the jargon, "free software", with "open source".

These wars are like GNU/Linux distro x Linux distro. It affects me that credit is denied to many for their contributions. Even Microsoft gets credit for WSL that is not much different from Usermode Linux. Give GNU their cred.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
LinuxRocks.Online

Linux Geeks doing what Linux Geeks do..