https://lemmy.ml/post/13864821
I’d understand if they were a random user, but a mod should already have at least some understanding about a community’s topic.
But worse to me are their comments in that post calling the people responding “childish trolls in this community”. I do not think that this is appropriate for a moderator.
Open source doesn’t mean foss.
I think people being such zealots about getting paid is actually a huge problem with the open source community.
Giant corporations should absolutely pay to use these projects that are often labours of love done in spare time.
The purists and the zealots are the worst part of any community. If the real source (aka not obfuscated) is openly available with no access restrictions like “send me an email to get the source code”, then it’s opensource in my book. “Free” and “Libre” are just additional attributes for a subclass of opensource.
class Opensource {} interface IsFree {} interface IsLibre {} class FOSS extends Opensource implements IsFree {} class FLOSS extends Opensource implements IsFree, IsLibre {}It’s really simple.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
@onlinepersona soooo… any non-obfuscated javascript is open-source according to you? That doesn’t make much sense.
How does it not make sense?
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
@onlinepersona Wait, you really think any non-obfuscated javascript code is open-source?
Wait… you think somebody’s minified JS committed to a repo is opensource? 😅
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
@onlinepersona Are you ok? You wrote that in your book any non-obfuscated code is open-source. But on the internet, any javascript is sent to the browser as text, so as long as the javascript is non-obfuscated (according to your definition), then it fits your statement about being open-source. But that would mean you consider many proprietary codes as being open-source, which is simply wrong. Open-source is a license, it comes with rights and obligations. It can’t be just about being readable.
Why wouldn’t it be opensource. It’s right there in the name: the source is open.
You not being able to freely redistribute it means it a restrictive license, but it’s opensource. I can look at it, get inspired by the solution, and write another one or a similar one and put another license on it. And if I don’t care about the license, it can just be copied and redistributed 🤷
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
@onlinepersona 🤦♂️ ok, that explains everything…
It’s not open-source without the license. I think they may be confusing source available with open source.
In the case of JavaScript, obfuscation turns source code into a compilation result for performance and “security” reasons. It removes unused tokens, comments, spaces, newlines, etc. to reduce the data transfer size.
So, by definition, non-obfuscated code is source code, as it is the code the compiled or built product originates from. However, most sites on the web don’t ship source code, only minified and obfuscated code.
@isVeryLoud Even “source available” is a license. The code sent to your browser may be proprietary, all rights reserved, you may not be legally allowed to study it, yet it has to be somehow sent to your browser for things to appear on your screen. The fact that it’s readable, and the fact that you are legally allowed to read it, are two different things. All I’m saying is that taking the “open” as “readable” is simply wrong, that’s not how things work. If it did, many things would fall apart.