• baduhai@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    You can follow whatever you think is best. I’ll stick to and evangilise what I view to be the correct definition of open source.

    Ubuntu is not FSF approved, and guess what, it’s still a GNU operating system

    What makes Ubuntu a GNU operating system isn’t the fact that it’s FSF approved, it’s the fact that it uses GNU tools.

    • kadup@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      What makes Ubuntu a GNU operating system isn’t the fact that it’s FSF approved, it’s the fact that it uses GNU tools.

      Exactly. You’re precisely right. Which is why:

      What makes software open source isn’t the fact that it’s OSI approved, it’s the fact that the source is open for scrutiny.

      • baduhai@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        What? The two things have nothing to do with each other. A GNU operating system doesn’t need to be open source or have its source code available anywhere. A GNU operating system just means it uses GNU tools.

        You could write a new kernel from scratch, never distribute a single character of the source code, make an operating system with your new kernel along with GNU tools, and even sell your operating system, which the GPL allows for. The GNU tools would still be open source, sure, but your operating system would be neither open source, nor have its source code completely available.