Skip to main content
Super User

Return to Question

added 16 characters in body
Source Link
Samuel
Samuel
  • 119
  • 1
  • 6

In a paper that I read recently, the authors promote their software as open source because it was released on GitHub under the Apache License 2.0. However, the software is an add-in to a proprietary (closed source) and non-free software. Furthermore, it was developed using C# and the .NET Framework, which I think should, historically at least, has not bebeen considered open source or free software. Based on this, is it really correct to label this add-in open source software?

In a paper that I read recently, the authors promote their software as open source because it was released on GitHub under the Apache License 2.0. However, the software is an add-in to a proprietary (closed source) and non-free software. Furthermore, it was developed using C# and the .NET Framework which I think should not be considered open source or free software. Based on this, is it really correct to label this add-in open source software?

In a paper that I read recently, the authors promote their software as open source because it was released on GitHub under the Apache License 2.0. However, the software is an add-in to a proprietary (closed source) and non-free software. Furthermore, it was developed using C# and the .NET Framework, which, historically at least, has not been considered open source or free software. Based on this, is it really correct to label this add-in open source software?

Post Closed as "Not suitable for this site" by fixer1234, Thomas Dickey, Ramhound, n8te, bertieb
Source Link
Samuel
Samuel
  • 119
  • 1
  • 6

Can a freely available add-in to a proprietary softare be considered open source?

In a paper that I read recently, the authors promote their software as open source because it was released on GitHub under the Apache License 2.0. However, the software is an add-in to a proprietary (closed source) and non-free software. Furthermore, it was developed using C# and the .NET Framework which I think should not be considered open source or free software. Based on this, is it really correct to label this add-in open source software?