IMO the distinction is important; it tells me, broadly, what I can and cannot do with the source code.
Heck, the .NET Framework source has been available for eons (referencesource.microsoft.com), but you can't go compile it and build your own .NET Framework distro (Mono is a different story).
there was some guy on hackernews whose post I had read who had actually compiled .net entirely from source.
Like the issue I think becomes that .net itself was written in .net and so you needed the earlier proprietary versions right?
But Gnu also had a .net compiler and he had actually used it on guix (basically like nix) to really create sort of reproducible .net , I am sure that some reader of this comment will attach the post on which I am talking
Then call it a new term. Don't change the definition of existing words. An open door isn't an invitation to change it, or to use it for free. It's just an open door and you can look inside.
p_ing|11 months ago
Heck, the .NET Framework source has been available for eons (referencesource.microsoft.com), but you can't go compile it and build your own .NET Framework distro (Mono is a different story).
Imustaskforhelp|11 months ago
Like the issue I think becomes that .net itself was written in .net and so you needed the earlier proprietary versions right?
But Gnu also had a .net compiler and he had actually used it on guix (basically like nix) to really create sort of reproducible .net , I am sure that some reader of this comment will attach the post on which I am talking
neilv|11 months ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
Destroying the meaning of words is an activity for Orwellian villains.
evanelias|11 months ago
byyll|10 months ago
insane_dreamer|11 months ago
No, that's not it. What you can do with the source code is just as important as the source code being available.
byyll|10 months ago
yjftsjthsd-h|11 months ago
No, that's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software
preisschild|11 months ago
byyll|10 months ago