|
|
|
|
|
|
by Aspie96
999 days ago
|
|
|
While I agree with most of your comment (and upvoted it), I'm not sure about this: > While the Free part of FOSS is being substituted by “(just) open source” and “source available”, Free software and open source are the same category of software and licenses (except for sporadic instances that are at the very edge of that one category, as categories tend to be blurred). Software that is merely source available, of course, is not FLOSS by default. But I don't actually see free software being replaced by software which is just source available. There are companies trying to push source available proprietary software as "open source", perhaps hoping for such replacement, and this has had some success in some specific areas, but the open source community is pushing against it. Or, at least, the wise ones in it are. |
|
|
GP here. I agree. I should’ve worded it better to say that a lot of “*source” terms are used to make it seem as if the publishers are meeting a great ideal (like FLOSS), but are muddling things more and more. I shouldn’t have listed “source available in the very same sentence” without being clear. I don’t have stats, but “open source” and similar terms have been used as buzzwords for marketing while the publishers really want their SaaS to be the one people ultimately pay for and use.