commit: 71813d7dad104bf32bd83db70694619ebd200226
parent 8cbf31dd05db58909dd1985c60d91d0a1c83f113
Author: Haelwenn (lanodan) Monnier <contact@hacktivis.me>
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2020 16:36:54 +0100
software basic needs: Why shared-source/Open-core isn't Open-Source
Diffstat:
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/software basic needs.shtml b/software basic needs.shtml
@@ -34,8 +34,9 @@
<li>License that is approuved by the <abbr title="Open Source Initiative">OSI</abbr>/<abbr title="Free Software Foundation">FSF</abbr> or at least compatible with the <a href="https://opensource.org/osd">Open Source Definition</a></li>
<li>Public developer discussion space (can be shared with the rest of the community)</li>
<li>Public version control system</li>
- <li>Ability to send patches, better if an account isn't required</li>
+ <li>Ability to send patches, better if an account isn't required (ie. via email instead of a forge)</li>
</ul>
+ <p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared-source">Shared-source</a> is one example of something which isn't Open-Source as a release/workflow model yet can have some licences be <abbr title="Open Source Initiative">OSI</abbr>/<abbr title="Free Software Foundation">FSF</abbr> approuved. The idea of open-source is to develop everything in the open by default, the idea of shared-source is to only share selected bits of code (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-core_model">Open-Core</a> is a similar thing).</p>
<h2>Security critical software</h2>
<p>Security-critial software <em>must</em> be open-source and evident as secure. Which means that it has to be minimalist and readable.</p>
