https://lemmy.ml/post/13864821

I’d understand if they were a random user, but a mod should already have at least some understanding about a community’s topic.

But worse to me are their comments in that post calling the people responding “childish trolls in this community”. I do not think that this is appropriate for a moderator.

      • setVeryLoud(true);@lemmy.ca
        1·
        3 months ago

        It’s not open-source without the license. I think they may be confusing source available with open source.

        In the case of JavaScript, obfuscation turns source code into a compilation result for performance and “security” reasons. It removes unused tokens, comments, spaces, newlines, etc. to reduce the data transfer size.

        So, by definition, non-obfuscated code is source code, as it is the code the compiled or built product originates from. However, most sites on the web don’t ship source code, only minified and obfuscated code.

        • chebra@mstdn.io
          32·
          3 months ago

          @onlinepersona Are you ok? You wrote that in your book any non-obfuscated code is open-source. But on the internet, any javascript is sent to the browser as text, so as long as the javascript is non-obfuscated (according to your definition), then it fits your statement about being open-source. But that would mean you consider many proprietary codes as being open-source, which is simply wrong. Open-source is a license, it comes with rights and obligations. It can’t be just about being readable.

          • onlinepersona@programming.devEnglish
            73·
            3 months ago

            Why wouldn’t it be opensource. It’s right there in the name: the source is open.

            You not being able to freely redistribute it means it a restrictive license, but it’s opensource. I can look at it, get inspired by the solution, and write another one or a similar one and put another license on it. And if I don’t care about the license, it can just be copied and redistributed 🤷

            CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

                • Chewy@discuss.tchncs.de
                  2·
                  3 months ago

                  The license you’re attaching to your comments uses copyright to restrict commercial use. Are you okay with any company ignoring your license because you’ve posted it in the open?

                  The term source-available is exactly what you should be using instead of open-source, as the latter has been defined differently for decades.

                  The only instances I’ve seen people using the term open-source literally has been companies who wanted to benefit from positive connotations of open-source, while using a commercial source-available license which restricts many freedoms.

                  Another comment: https://linkage.ds8.zone/comment/1105950

                  • onlinepersona@programming.devEnglish
                    21·
                    3 months ago

                    You’re not making much of an argument against me. I wish there were no copyright, no patents, no closed-source, no “trade secrets”, none of that. But I live in the real world, not some hedonistic, communist, kopimist fantasy.

                    Copyright exists in this world and if it can maybe bring trouble to one org reaping the benefits of the commons without giving back, I’ll gladly use it. Orgs treat copyright like bumberstickers and regularly ignore that (meaning anything) which has the low chance of being enforced or have significant monetary repercussions, so I do the same.

                    CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

                • chebra@mstdn.io
                  1·
                  3 months ago

                  @onlinepersona Please note, by adding the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 to your comments, you are executing your copyright. Do *you* think copyright is good for you?