← Back to context Comment by Lammy 5 days ago [flagged] 6 comments Lammy Reply drcongo 5 days ago Open source = I should be able to fork it, change it, and use itOpen source = The maintainers should build exactly what I hysterically scream at themIf I had to choose one definition of open source from these two options, it's going to option 1 I'm afraid. Lammy 5 days ago Once again confusing Open Source with Free Software. bigstrat2003 5 days ago Neither "open source" nor "free software" has ever meant that the developers must accept contributions from third parties. ninkendo 5 days ago Literally nothing to do with that distinction. lokar 5 days ago It seems to have a BSD license, what more are you looking for? lijok 5 days ago You control what software you install
drcongo 5 days ago Open source = I should be able to fork it, change it, and use itOpen source = The maintainers should build exactly what I hysterically scream at themIf I had to choose one definition of open source from these two options, it's going to option 1 I'm afraid. Lammy 5 days ago Once again confusing Open Source with Free Software. bigstrat2003 5 days ago Neither "open source" nor "free software" has ever meant that the developers must accept contributions from third parties. ninkendo 5 days ago Literally nothing to do with that distinction. lokar 5 days ago It seems to have a BSD license, what more are you looking for?
Lammy 5 days ago Once again confusing Open Source with Free Software. bigstrat2003 5 days ago Neither "open source" nor "free software" has ever meant that the developers must accept contributions from third parties. ninkendo 5 days ago Literally nothing to do with that distinction. lokar 5 days ago It seems to have a BSD license, what more are you looking for?
bigstrat2003 5 days ago Neither "open source" nor "free software" has ever meant that the developers must accept contributions from third parties.
Open source = I should be able to fork it, change it, and use it
Open source = The maintainers should build exactly what I hysterically scream at them
If I had to choose one definition of open source from these two options, it's going to option 1 I'm afraid.
Once again confusing Open Source with Free Software.
Neither "open source" nor "free software" has ever meant that the developers must accept contributions from third parties.
Literally nothing to do with that distinction.
It seems to have a BSD license, what more are you looking for?
You control what software you install