• Ferk@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I guess it’s better than not providing any source code. What’s wrong is calling it “open source” when it isn’t.

    VVVVVV and Anodyne are some examples of “source available” games.

    • toastal@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Not what I am arguing, but we do have two issues: 1) naming/branding for these types of licenses 2) FOSS banshees acting like these licenses aren’t acceptable & the whole idea is binary good or evil

      • JackbyDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        As long as we don’t call them free, libre, or open source I don’t care. We can’t make the terminology any more confusing for those.

        • toastal@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          There’s limited vocab to choose from & source available isn’t an appealing one

          • Ferk@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Yeah, it definitely is more appealing from a marketing perspective.

            I do understand why some projects might wanna use the term, it’s to their advantage to be associated with “open source” even if the source code itself has a proprietary license.

            The problem is that then it makes it harder / more confusing to check for actually openly licensed code, since then it’s not clear what term to use. Already “free software” can be confused with “free as in free beer”.