this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
117 points (96.8% liked)

Programmer Humor

19463 readers
30 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Feyter@programming.dev
anzo@programming.dev
BurningTurtle@programming.dev
pylapp@programming.dev
117
Good&Evil is a classic altrock album by Tally Hall, and now, for something completely different, JSON (media.kbin.social)
submitted 9 months ago by Aatube@kbin.social to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] hosaka@programming.dev 17 points 9 months ago (4 children)

It's a reader assistance, some paid for tool that highlights parts of a word, can't recall what it's called...

[–] Aatube@kbin.social 7 points 9 months ago

I use a Firefox thing which has additional features and is free

[–] Maven@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 9 months ago

It's also not necessarily paid for, Jiffy Reader is a free browser addon

[–] fenndev@leminal.space 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

This reminded me that I wanted to look into open source alternatives to Bionic Reader...

[–] Aatube@kbin.social 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

All extensions are technically open source because they “compile” to JavaScript. Most, including the one I use, don’t bother obfuscating

[–] LinuxSBC@lemm.ee 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Open source is a license. What you're referring to is "source-available." You can't legally fork, redistribute, or contribute to it.

[–] maxmalrichtig@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I think you got that one wrong.

Open source is not a license. Open source literally just means that the source is openly available. It does not include the right for you to reuse or change any of the source.

That's why most of the time, people are talking about "Free Open Source Software" (FOSS) when they think of openly licensed source code.

That's why you can publish your project on e.g. Github (= open source) but if you don't add a license statement, your work is still protected by an "all rights reserved copyright". (= not free)

Anyhow, I would not necessarily deem a project OSS, just because the used language is readable by default. To me, OSS needs at least the developers intention to make it openly available.

[–] aberrate_junior_beatnik@midwest.social 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Open-source software (OSS) is computer software that is released under a license in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software and its source code to anyone and for any purpose.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software

[–] maxmalrichtig@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Well put me in a dress and call me Sheryl. Never knew that the "accepted definitions" were really that close. Thanks!

I knew that some definitions of OSS were really basic (as in "as long as there is source at some point") but I didn't know that the OSI definition was so close to the idea of "free software".

I found the read about the history and similarities & differences quite interesting: https://web.archive.org/web/20180915200609/http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

[–] Aatube@kbin.social 4 points 9 months ago

put me in a dress and call me Sheryl

That's a colorful expression if I've ever seen one

[–] MinekPo1@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 9 months ago

While I agree with you , the Open Software Initiative doesn't :

Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code.

So according to the OSI's definition of open source , a project being public on github , but with out a license or with a license which does not comply with the requirements set out by the OSI