Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ivanbakel 705 days ago
>Strictly, it doesn't even mean that you are legally allowed to modify the source code to make it not update automatically.

Most definitions of open-source (e.g. OSI) include rights to modification. Without modification and distribution rights, programs are normally referred to as source-available instead. This is a common complaint on this very forum when companies misleadingly market their SA code as OS.
1 comments
AlienRobot 704 days ago
Right, but being able to "trust" because it's "open source" makes me think trust comes from the ability of read the source code, not modify it.
link
ivanbakel 704 days ago
That requires trusting that the available source is actually what's running on the machine, which is not much better than trusting that a closed-source program is correct. Open-source software is more trustworthy not only because it's inspectable, but also because you can decide to run precisely the code you see, so there's also accountability for the code that is run.
link