- cross-posted to:
- opensource@lemmy.ml
- technology@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- opensource@lemmy.ml
- technology@beehaw.org
You must log in or register to comment.
@schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de why on earth would you use a title like that? It‘s just plain wrong. The project switched to a different license. It is still free and still open source.
It’s free as in free food but adding an extra line to restrict how it can be used, or with who, makes it non-free software (free as in freedom).
To a different license that, objectively, is not free and open source.
So as far as I gather, it’s still just as open source as before but you just can’t sell it on the Confluence marketplace? Seems fair.
I think they moved from GPL3 to Apache 2 in 2017 and then only added that one line about restricting confluence in August.
Very confusing title!!
Crazy to see the thread of people using “open source” differently. The term “open source” may have successed in replacing the older term “free software” (in popularity) but apparently it can also fail to be clear. “Open” can mean various degrees of openess, or lack thereof in this case.
The AI bubble is currently grinding my gears on this. “XXX is an open source model”. No, it’s not. Do I have access to all of the information necessary to recreate it? No, I don’t as nobody releases training data.
Training data is the source of these models. Without it, they are just free use.
Good for them.
The adherence to open source in the form of free labor for corporations is not about freedom or availability whatsoever.
