By the acronym, opening up the source code to the public would make it open source. What is Grayjay missing to be open source then? Accepting contributions?
I understand what you’re saying. What would make GrayJay open source? Allowing for community contribution?
Edit: I looked it up thanks to your unhelpfullness, and open source seems to mean making the code available for the community to use, modify, and share, which Grayjay seems to do. I’m pretty sure I’m right here, but I do want to hear your definition and argument. Is your issue that the license doesn’t allow others to make money using the source code?
Open source/libre/foss all have to do with the license. Grayjay doesn’t have a license that meets the criteria because it places arbitrary restrictions on the code.
It has nothing to do with contributions. You can ship the code on a CD and that is totally fine as long as it has the proper license.
Source code doesn’t make it foss
Windows XP is open source by that definition
By the acronym, opening up the source code to the public would make it open source. What is Grayjay missing to be open source then? Accepting contributions?
No, that’s not how it works. It is source available
I understand what you’re saying. What would make GrayJay open source? Allowing for community contribution?
Edit: I looked it up thanks to your unhelpfullness, and open source seems to mean making the code available for the community to use, modify, and share, which Grayjay seems to do. I’m pretty sure I’m right here, but I do want to hear your definition and argument. Is your issue that the license doesn’t allow others to make money using the source code?
Open source/libre/foss all have to do with the license. Grayjay doesn’t have a license that meets the criteria because it places arbitrary restrictions on the code.
It has nothing to do with contributions. You can ship the code on a CD and that is totally fine as long as it has the proper license.