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

Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

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

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Projects promoted as FLOSS but which are neither Free Software nor Open Source (lemmy.ml)

submitted 4 years ago* (last edited 4 years ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

40 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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] 7 points 4 years ago (2 children)

Vivaldi is propietary with the exception of old released whose source code is released as a permissive FLOSS license, but only old versions.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 years ago* (last edited 4 years ago)

Bit of a sidenote, but Vivaldi is just another Chromium browser. If I had to use Chromium, I'd rather use the Ungoogled fork, even if it's not perfect at removing everything Google because they've made themselves so damn pervasive in the codebase.

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

Ah ok, I think back then it was something weird, like most of the code being open-source (the Chromium portion), then the Vivaldi-specific code was source-available, except for the assets, but you could get a hold of those assets by extracting them from the official build.

Thinking about it, I guess some may have actually thought that open-source == source-available, but I also distinctly remember someone delivering the explanation above to argue that it's technically open-source, because you could compile it yourself, if you really wanted to.

...which is not at all the definition of open-source, but yeah, you linked it above, I don't need to go into that.

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

I have to fix something in which I was wrong, even older releases, they only free the changes made to the Chromium codebase but maintaining a part of their own code, for the interface, as review-only license. Source: https://help.vivaldi.com/desktop/privacy/is-vivaldi-open-source/

The concept of review-only is something I have seen mostly promoted as open source when it is not.

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

Ah, thanks for posting that. I guess that horrible bullshit it's-still-practically-open-source excuse actually came from their own website.

Yes, what they wrote there is technically correct and technically they did not claim that they were open-source. But they also wrote it in the most confusing, most misleading way possible. That whole response should've began with "No, it's not open-source".