this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
42 points (97.7% liked)

Emulation

3530 readers
1 users here now

Community to talk about emulation & roms.

RULES:

1.) No bigotry

LINKS:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
42
DuckStation Creator Considers Shutting Down Emulator Amid License Change (www.retronews.com)
submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
32 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (22 children)

Exactly my thoughts. The project is going to remain open source, but not free. I hate when people fail to recognize the difference between free software and open source software.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (17 children)

According to the definition from the Open Source Initiative, "open source" also requires free redistribution. See the first point (emphasis mine).

  1. Free Redistribution

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

It also requires freedom to distribute modifications:

  1. Derived Works

The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

CC-BY-NC-ND is not "open source" (both due to the NC and the ND), it's more of a "source available" type of license (when applied to source code). The difference between "free software" and "open source" is more ideological than anything else, they both define the same freedoms, just with different ideological objectives / goals.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

See discussion here. Open Source is a valid term for this. Don't police perfectly innocent and common use of language please.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

That discussion concluded essentially the same thing I said: that both the OSI and the FSF have essentially the same conditions and that "merely having the source available is not enough to meet what the OSD defines as open source" (sic).

Don’t police perfectly innocent and common use of language please.

Using "open source" for all kinds of source, regardless of how restrictive its license is, is definitely not a common use of the term.

People aren't gonna start using "open source" like that just because a few people find it more convenient for the marketing of their projects. To me it sounds like they are the ones policing to push for a particular language standard against what people commonly use, which is what makes language prescriptive, instead of descriptive.

load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)