▲ 170 ▼ [OUTDATED POST] Floorp, a Firefox Fork with an awful name, has moved some components inside a private submodule. (github.com) submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/opensource@lemmy.ml 72 comments fedilink hide all child comments Update: They just open-sourced it https://github.com/Floorp-Projects/Floorp-private-components cross-posted from: https://kbin.melroy.org/m/foss@beehaw.org/t/170330 See also https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/floorp-going-closed-source/52783
[–] Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com [S] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Not proprietary, but source-available. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] beyond@linkage.ds8.zone 7 points 2 years ago* (1 child) source-available. Ergo, proprietary. edit: my prior comment on the difference between fauxpen source and true free software licenses. It's not just theoretical or "purist" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com [S] 0 points 2 years ago (2 children) Ok sure, but most people associate proprietary with closed-source. What's wrong with just saying source-available (instead of open-source)? Calling this proprietary just leads to confusion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Spore@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago Because it gives the wrong impression that it is not proprietary, just like how you are making this exact mistake. permalink fedilink source parent [–] beyond@linkage.ds8.zone 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Because it's not really about the "availability" of source code, but more about what you can actually do with the source code. If you don't have the four freedoms it's not free software. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com [S] 2 points 2 years ago Well free software isn't the same thing as open-source software permalink fedilink source parent
[–] beyond@linkage.ds8.zone 7 points 2 years ago* (1 child) source-available. Ergo, proprietary. edit: my prior comment on the difference between fauxpen source and true free software licenses. It's not just theoretical or "purist" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com [S] 0 points 2 years ago (2 children) Ok sure, but most people associate proprietary with closed-source. What's wrong with just saying source-available (instead of open-source)? Calling this proprietary just leads to confusion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Spore@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago Because it gives the wrong impression that it is not proprietary, just like how you are making this exact mistake. permalink fedilink source parent [–] beyond@linkage.ds8.zone 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Because it's not really about the "availability" of source code, but more about what you can actually do with the source code. If you don't have the four freedoms it's not free software. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com [S] 2 points 2 years ago Well free software isn't the same thing as open-source software permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com [S] 0 points 2 years ago (2 children) Ok sure, but most people associate proprietary with closed-source. What's wrong with just saying source-available (instead of open-source)? Calling this proprietary just leads to confusion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Spore@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago Because it gives the wrong impression that it is not proprietary, just like how you are making this exact mistake. permalink fedilink source parent [–] beyond@linkage.ds8.zone 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Because it's not really about the "availability" of source code, but more about what you can actually do with the source code. If you don't have the four freedoms it's not free software. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com [S] 2 points 2 years ago Well free software isn't the same thing as open-source software permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Spore@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago Because it gives the wrong impression that it is not proprietary, just like how you are making this exact mistake. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] beyond@linkage.ds8.zone 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Because it's not really about the "availability" of source code, but more about what you can actually do with the source code. If you don't have the four freedoms it's not free software. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com [S] 2 points 2 years ago Well free software isn't the same thing as open-source software permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com [S] 2 points 2 years ago Well free software isn't the same thing as open-source software permalink fedilink source parent