• kava@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 hours ago

    I agree with you. What I’m saying is that perhaps the law can differentiate between “not open source” “partially open source” and “fully open source”

    right now it’s just the binary yes/no. which again determines whether or not millions of people would have access to something that could be useful to them

    i’m not saying change the definition of open source. i’m saying for legal purposes, in the EU, there should be some clarification in the law. if there is a financial benefit to having an open source product available then there should be something for having a partially open source product available

    especially a product that is as open source as it could possible legally be without violating copyright

    • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Open source isn’t defined legally, only through the OSI. The benefit is only from a marketing perspective as far as I’m aware.

      Which is also why it’s important that “open source” doesn’t get mixed up with “partially open source”, otherwise companies will get the benefits of “open source” without doing the actual work.