45
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] toastal@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago

Not what I am arguing, but we do have two issues: 1) naming/branding for these types of licenses 2) FOSS banshees acting like these licenses aren’t acceptable & the whole idea is binary good or evil

[-] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

As long as we don't call them free, libre, or open source I don't care. We shouldn't make the terminology any more confusing for those.

[-] toastal@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago

There’s limited vocab to choose from & source available isn’t an appealing one

[-] Ferk@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yeah, it definitely is more appealing from a marketing perspective.

I do understand why some projects might wanna use the term, it's to their advantage to be associated with "open source" even if the source code itself has a proprietary license.

The problem is that then it makes it harder / more confusing to check for actually openly licensed code, since then it's not clear what term to use. Already "free software" can be confused with "free as in free beer".

[-] toastal@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago

Right. We want clear labels else they become meaningless like “boost immune system”. There probably is something that can fix the phrasing when someone finds it, but it also must not be poisoned by those going too hard into free software as a lifestyle or corporations looking to circumvent the premise. What it should be called tho, I don’t know.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
45 points (97.9% liked)

Emulation

3502 readers
2 users here now

Community to talk about emulation & roms.

RULES:

1.) No bigotry

LINKS:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS