From today the license applied to the project will be the Apache 2.0 license with an extra line forbidding usage of the codebase as an integration or app to Atlassian's Confluence or Jira products....
Then nvidia produced Open Source code then I guess?
(There were Repos, but everything was Copyrighted. Noone was technically allowed to use it afaik, but it was still there about some AI stuff back then)
@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.
The definition of the worlds open source seems to me that the source is readable by everyone.
If you mean something different like @[email protected] said, then that’s something else.
@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.
Open source means that the source code is…open, that everyone can view and use it, it doesn’t mean that everyone can contribute to it. Or am I wrong?
People usually use the open source definition from the Open Source Initiative. That definition does have extra requirements:
https://opensource.org/osd
Then nvidia produced Open Source code then I guess?
(There were Repos, but everything was Copyrighted. Noone was technically allowed to use it afaik, but it was still there about some AI stuff back then)
@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.
@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.
The definition of the worlds open source seems to me that the source is readable by everyone. If you mean something different like @[email protected] said, then that’s something else.
That is usually referred to as “source available” and doesnt fall into the category of open source.
@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.