7 ms·
Opensource doesn't mean open to contributions. The source code is available, you can fork it and apply your patches there. This is the way to go to reduce supp
by merelydev 3mo ago
Opensource doesn't mean open to contributions. The source code is available, you can fork it and apply your patches there.
This is the way to go to reduce supply chain vulnerabilities and to reduce time of mainters reviewing LLM slop.
- leoc 3mo ago> Opensource doesn't mean open to contributions. That's not entirely true. It's certainly the case that Ladybird is still under an open-source license, but the whole idea of the "Open Source" label was to move the emphasis away from having a free license to actually being open to patches in practice.
- Hendrikto 3mo agoNot even the most extreme FOSS zealots (RMS, FSF, …) ever claimed that taking public contributions was ever a part of that.
- leoc 3mo agoBut that's a bit backwards. RMS would emphatically agree that Free Software doesn't mean being open to contributions; if you asked him about either "FOSS" or "Open Source" he'd probably command you to wash your mouth out with soap. It's the other side of the fighting FOSS family which evangelised for Linux-like development (see the thread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48410503 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48410503 ).