danb@feddit.uk to Open Source@lemmy.ml · 2 months agoNo, Gumroad Did Not Become Open Source Todaydanb.meexternal-linkmessage-square3fedilinkarrow-up140arrow-down13cross-posted to: Tech@europe.pubOpenSource@europe.pub
arrow-up137arrow-down1external-linkNo, Gumroad Did Not Become Open Source Todaydanb.medanb@feddit.uk to Open Source@lemmy.ml · 2 months agomessage-square3fedilinkcross-posted to: Tech@europe.pubOpenSource@europe.pub
minus-squarevintageballs@feddit.orglinkfedilinkDeutscharrow-up2arrow-down7·2 months agoWell they published their source code. It’s not as permissively licensed as usual open source projects, but I would argue that in the true sense of the phrase, this falls under “open source”.
minus-squarelambipapp@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up31·2 months agoThis is commonly known as ‘source available’ rather than open source
minus-squaremakingStuffForFun@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up12·2 months agoCorrect. The non open source licenses, such as 'fair code ’ are not open source. They are available, but not open. It dilutes the true meaning, and I find it a little nefarious when a company calls their code open, when it’s in reality available.
Well they published their source code.
It’s not as permissively licensed as usual open source projects, but I would argue that in the true sense of the phrase, this falls under “open source”.
This is commonly known as ‘source available’ rather than open source
Correct. The non open source licenses, such as 'fair code ’ are not open source. They are available, but not open.
It dilutes the true meaning, and I find it a little nefarious when a company calls their code open, when it’s in reality available.