Update: They just open-sourced it https://github.com/Floorp-Projects/Floorp-private-components
cross-posted from: https://kbin.melroy.org/m/[email protected]/t/170330
See also https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/floorp-going-closed-source/52783
Update: They just open-sourced it https://github.com/Floorp-Projects/Floorp-private-components
cross-posted from: https://kbin.melroy.org/m/[email protected]/t/170330
See also https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/floorp-going-closed-source/52783
Not proprietary, but source-available.
Ergo, proprietary.
edit: my prior comment on the difference between fauxpen source and true free software licenses. It’s not just theoretical or “purist”
Ok sure, but most people associate proprietary with closed-source. What’s wrong with just saying source-available (instead of open-source)? Calling this proprietary just leads to confusion.
Because it gives the wrong impression that it is not proprietary, just like how you are making this exact mistake.
Because it’s not really about the “availability” of source code, but more about what you can actually do with the source code. If you don’t have the four freedoms it’s not free software.
Well free software isn’t the same thing as open-source software