Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

"Free as in as long as you don't try to compile your own."

If you think that addresses the issues at play, you haven't been paying attention to both sides of the debate.




Open source does not mean free to build & use. It means open source.


Open source means these things: http://opensource.org/osd

"Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:"

Without being able to build and use it, the "derived works" section can't be met.


That reads more like the GPL than a definition of what open source means. What, then, do you call code that provides the source but does not allow you free distribution of both the source & binaries? "The source is open but it's not open source"?


Usually that's called shared source.


That's exactly what I'm saying; open source misses the point. This is a free software issue.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: