• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    22 months ago

    Not what I am arguing, but we do have two issues: 1) naming/branding for these types of licenses 2) FOSS banshees acting like these licenses aren’t acceptable & the whole idea is binary good or evil

    • JackbyDev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      As long as we don’t call them free, libre, or open source I don’t care. We shouldn’t make the terminology any more confusing for those.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Yeah, it definitely is more appealing from a marketing perspective.

          I do understand why some projects might wanna use the term, it’s to their advantage to be associated with “open source” even if the source code itself has a proprietary license.

          The problem is that then it makes it harder / more confusing to check for actually openly licensed code, since then it’s not clear what term to use. Already “free software” can be confused with “free as in free beer”.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            12 months ago

            Right. We want clear labels else they become meaningless like “boost immune system”. There probably is something that can fix the phrasing when someone finds it, but it also must not be poisoned by those going too hard into free software as a lifestyle or corporations looking to circumvent the premise. What it should be called tho, I don’t know.

        • JackbyDev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 months ago

          It doesn’t really roll off the tongue, I get it, but it’s the best and most widely used term for software whose source is available to view but not modify and/or redistribute.