yegorpetrov on Nostr: 🎯 If you say your project is open source then it must have MIT licensee or GFY ...

🎯
If you say your project is open source then it must have MIT licensee or GFY

quoting note1hk7…wdh6

There’s needs to be a clearer distinction for degrees of open source I think… unless of course they already exist and I just don’t know them.

I guess “source viewable” is one I hear often. But there also needs to be a “closed development, but open code” version I think. Like just “open code” or something maybe. I don’t know but I feel like the demands of open source projects are growing, and users expect it to be exactly a certain way, and the ecosystem is varied enough that it might be useful to have distinctions for these things.

I don’t fault them for being closed development though. But I get why people wouldn’t like it being called “open source” but then finding out they don’t allow contributions or heavily control input from outside.