Open source ≠ Source availiable
Example of non open source programs with source code https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proprietary_source-available_software
Open source inherently means you can compile the code locally, for free. You can’t necessarily redistribute it, depending on the license, but I’m not aware of a “you can compile this source for testing and code changes only but if you use it as your actual copy you are infringing” license.
I am very much open to correction here.
Open source inherently means you can compile the code locally,
Open Source means more than that. It is defined here:
If you use the phrase “open source” for things that don’t meet those criteria, then without some clarifying context, you are misleading people.
for free.
Free Software is not the same as “software for free”. It, too, has a specific meaning, defined here:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
When the person to whom you replied wrote “free software”, they were not using it in some casual sense to mean free-of-charge.
Most free software is also open source and vice versa, but not all, the difference usually lies in the licence, this stackexchange answer gets it pretty well
According to the Open Source Initiative (the folks who control whether things can be officially certified as “open source”), it basically is the same thing as Free Software. In fact, their definition was copied and pasted from the Debian Free Software guidelines.
You are talking about free softwares there are nonfree licenses which provide source code
In this thread: Programmers disassembling the joke to try and figure out why it’s funny.
Cute. It would be funnier if it was correct.
For people interested in the difference between decompiled machine code and source code I would recommend looking at the Mario 64 Decomp project. They are attempting to turn a Mario 64 rom into source code and then back into that same rom. It’s really hard and they’ve been working on it for a long time. It’s come a long way but still isn’t done.
