• teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    24 hours ago

    Heh your “precise” statement is literally what I said:

    Open source does literally mean [source code can be viewed]…[it’s not the case that] source code being viewable means it’s open source

    Cheers.

    • Zangoose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      23 hours ago

      What you’re talking about is “source-available.” I.e. being able to read source code but not having licensing rights to redistribute or make changes.

      “Open-source” means that being able to modify and distribute changes is built into the license of the code.

      For example, Minecraft Java is source-available in that decompiling Java bytecode is trivial - enough so that tools exist which can easily generate a source code dump. However, actually distributing that source code dump is technically illegal and falls under piracy, so it isn’t open source.

      Edit: I didn’t see your edit, this comment is kind of pointless, oh well