@peregus why do you think so? My view is backed by the two official definitions from OSI and FSF, plus the wording of specific licenses. Your definition is backed by... linguistics? While ignoring the second (open cage) meaning of "open"? Quite strange narrow definition, don't you think? And at odds with everyone who has been doing open-source for decades.
chebra
joined 6 years ago
@peregus yes, wrong. Being "open" doesn't mean just "readable". Imagine an open bird cage, not just an open book. It needs to be open to fly free.
@ReversalHatchery @velox_vulnus
It violates "freedom 0" of the Free Software Definition too, so no difference there. This limitation on use makes is non-open-source AND non-free-software. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#fs-definition
@longpanda @horse_battery_staple
"stores various types of data efficiently, ensuring smooth performance and user experience" sounds exactly like "storing these tracking cookies for your enhanced experience on our site"
@trevor People in lemmy open-source community not seeing the relevancy of the open-source guarantee of F-Droid... SMH
@trevor What are you talking about? If they can't build it themselves without proprietary stuff, then it doesn't get published. That's not a mere "guideline".
@MigratingtoLemmy Yup, there are even some similarities from the Twitter/Nitter fight - tracking tokens, IP blocks, API limits, ... Get ready for youtube requiring login to watch videos.
@MigratingtoLemmy you are wrong though. They are adding tokens and signatures, without them the videos aren't playing. But I just updated my invidious and it's playing fine again => it's not an IP block (yet), it is a change in the youtube media api, so the players need to be changed too = effectively a player block.
@ReakDuck I'm sure nvidia would like that, this "open source" label is good for marketing. They just want to avoid being actually open. Have the cake and eat it, like many businesses do.