Open Source

32747 readers

155 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

178

[OUTDATED POST] Floorp, a Firefox Fork with an awful name, has moved some components inside a private submodule. (github.com)

submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

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/[email protected]/t/170330

See also https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/floorp-going-closed-source/52783

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The "open sourced" private components repo is under a fauxpen source (non-commercial) license. Floorp is still proprietary.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Not proprietary, but source-available.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

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"

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months 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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

Because it gives the wrong impression that it is not proprietary, just like how you are making this exact mistake.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

Well free software isn't the same thing as open-source software