[ivanjermakov]

> Ladybird remains open source. The source code will continue to be publicly available under an open source license.

We usually call open source software without open collaboration source available software.

This is terrible news, defeating core beliefs people had in Ladybird. Not an open browser I wished for.

[jpc0]

    1. Free Redistribution
    2. Source Code
    3. Derived Works
    4. Integrity of The Author’s Source Code
    5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
    6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
    7. Distribution of License
    8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
    9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
    10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral

Open source has nothing to do with the right to contribute upstream. It's about you being able to use the software how you like and make changes to it and redistribute it.

[KolmogorovComp]

> We usually call open source software without open collaboration source available software.

Not at all. You are of today’s lucky 10,000 [0]. Open source refers to OSI-compliant licenses, not open to contributions. SQLite is open source but not open to contributions.

[0] https://xkcd.com/1053/

[debugnik]

Hell no, open source is just about the licence, and source available generally refers to proprietary licenses that at least let customers access the source.

This is just the cathedral model to open source, as opposed to the bazaar you clearly prefer, but it's still open source.

[cromka]

Amen to that. Let's not redefine an already very precise terminology.

[ivanjermakov]

By definition yes, but I believe most people consider open contribution essential for OSS.

[m0llusk]

Abandoning editorial control is poison for all composed works.