![](https://media.mstdn.io/mstdn-media/accounts/avatars/000/132/680/original/56b712baa48c2e14.png)
![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/a64z2tlDDD.png)
@Hadriscus I wonder if anyone at SolarWinds or Mandiant would notice a 300ms delay. They didn’t even find it in June after the FBI contacted them.
@Hadriscus I wonder if anyone at SolarWinds or Mandiant would notice a 300ms delay. They didn’t even find it in June after the FBI contacted them.
In another words… a lot of spam.
@poVoq but that analogy would only work if the government was the only customer, footing the whole bill. More appropriate perspective is looking at how much would they pay if they got the same service from say Microsoft, or Slack.
@onlinepersona Please note, by adding the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 to your comments, you are executing your copyright. Do *you* think copyright is good for you?
@onlinepersona 🤦♂️ ok, that explains everything…
@onlinepersona Are you ok? You wrote that in your book any non-obfuscated code is open-source. But on the internet, any javascript is sent to the browser as text, so as long as the javascript is non-obfuscated (according to your definition), then it fits your statement about being open-source. But that would mean you consider many proprietary codes as being open-source, which is simply wrong. Open-source is a license, it comes with rights and obligations. It can’t be just about being readable.
@onlinepersona Wait, you really think any non-obfuscated javascript code is open-source?
@onlinepersona soooo… any non-obfuscated javascript is open-source according to you? That doesn’t make much sense.
@cyclohexane Yes, but… For many people, the appeal of open source has nothing to do with how easy it is for corporations. So any license that limit “corporate leech” is NOT FOSS because FOSS is about having no such limits. At the same time FOSS doesn’t say you can’t charge money, because FOSS is NOT about restricting profit.
> It is about transparency, the ability to contribute, and the community driven product as a result. It is about the ability to pick up the project if the original developer stops using it, even decades later. It’s about the ease of interfacing with said software.
That’s… exactly what the FSF and OSI definitions are all about.
@BreakDecks FOSS allows you to charge money per seat. But FOSS compels you to pass the freedoms on to others, so essentially, they will pay, then they will get the software with the license which gives them the freedoms, then they can decide to share it further without any payment. It’s no longer up to you. That’s what freedom means.
The level of misunderstanding of OSS licenses is astounding, and dangerous.
@haui_lemmy Look, I think we all agree that the maintainer financing needs to be improved, but what you are suggesting is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You would remove the whole “F” of the “FOSS” by adding restrictions on the freedoms. So we just need to keep looking, this is not it.
> It could fit the definition of open source
It doesn’t https://opensource.org/osd
@haui_lemmy That’s like saying “I want to fly but without losing touch with the ground” - it is possible, it’s just called “walking”. If you “don’t want someone to make money off of your invention” then that’s called “proprietary”.
@Faresh 1.) Making it easier to analyze. There are multiple steps in the whole process which may be hiding an exploit. The “tarball-not-same-as-git” is a clear example. Sure, reviewing will still be necessary and it will still be difficult, but it doesn’t have to be as difficult as today. 2.) stop giving maintainer rights, fork instead. That’s what pull requests are for. 3.) we should be careful if our critical infrastructure depends on a hobby project - either pay, or don’t depend.
@n0x0n Providing an authoritative source which directly contradicts your statement, that does not make any sense to you? I’m sorry then.
@heyoni I’m commenting from mastodon, I don’t even see any upvotes. Someone just started downvoting me because they ran out of arguments 🤷♂️
@n0x0n You are wrong though: https://opensource.org/osd
> Introduction
> Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code.
Literally the first sentence.
The definition you are using is being spread by the likes of Meta and Amazon.
@isthereanydeal Nope. That distinction only appeared when big companies kinda became afraid of open source software, so they wanted to redefine the term, create some confusion, corrupt it…
@SorteKanin I’d like to see that. I have already onboarded about 35 students and my whole family to matrix, nobody had any problems with signup. Bigger problem is later if they get the infamous “Unable to decrypt message” error.