There are many sinister versions of so-called open source software per your definition. Even some of the licenses prohibit you from compiling and creating your own version and use it, yet alone study, modify and/or distribute. There are also licenses which shows you the code, but you can't legally reuse parts of it. There are many licenses and license models, and there's an already a consensus on what consists of open source software. You are at odds with Wikipedia, IBM, RedHat and with Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, and with everyone else, really. I just searched for "open source" in a search engine, I'm getting and lists of "the best open source software". You are the one starting the battle and I don't understand your motives. You might not like or recognize the OSI and that's fine, but you can't decide what people mean when they say open source. The vast majority of projects that call themselves open source mean the open source definition as defined by the open source initiative, or something equivalent. I have noticed this since one month or so. This trend on HN that has consisted in wanting to kill the meaning of "open source" as most people understand it is very weird and surprising.
0 kommentar(er)
