this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2021
29 points (100.0% liked)

Open Source

32782 readers
573 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In the last years, I have seen plenty of users telling or promoting certain ultra-permissive rules as part of Open Source but which are not even in the definition like the use of read-only licenses, being a good example the MEGA software.

However, I didn't find exact source of these ideas and only believed in the misinformation of certain videos in *tube or similar.

Today, I was looking for a FLOSS VPN client to use at home as I use MATE DE and found Printunl Client promoted as Open Source. Or that was everything until I read the license.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 years ago (2 children)

Hope someone can create a list of licenses or projects that don't meet the definition.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 years ago* (last edited 4 years ago) (1 children)

On that note, there's now EPL(European)

Note: it's more like AGPL or GPL, it meets the definition just wanted to tell it exists.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 years ago* (last edited 4 years ago) (1 children)

Isn't that the EU one? If so, that's sad.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 years ago

It meets the definition though

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 years ago (1 children)

I think projects would be better since they can change licenses at any moment or use custom ones as this case.

Is that, and also that main licenses are already listed in GNU and Open Source websites.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 years ago

agreed. especially since most end users don't pay attention to things like license updates