12 ms·
That's fine but that's not "Open Source" as the open source community sees it. That's just source-available. It's great: when I choose proprietary software, I'm
by rsstack 6y ago
That's fine but that's not "Open Source" as the open source community sees it. That's just source-available. It's great: when I choose proprietary software, I'm much happier when I get the source code along with it since it can help with diagnostics and advanced cases. But it isn't "Open Source".
- BossingAround 6y ago> That's fine but that's not "Open Source" as the open source community sees it It's Apache 2. It's as "Open Source" as you can get [1]. [1] https://opensource.org/licenses/Apache-2.0 https://opensource.org/licenses/Apache-2.0
- rsstack 6y agoBut the actual source isn't Apache 2. It's just a build artifact that's licensed this way. It's "Open Package" not "Open Source". I can take a screenshot of Windows 10 and publish it under an Apache 2 license, but that doesn't make the Windows 10 source code "Open Source".