The correct defintion is source code is the preferred version for developing the project, not anything that humans can read. I can read some machine code reasonably well, but that does not make it source code.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Ha ! You were right until you called that machine code.
To clarify I didn't mean this obfuscated javascript is machine code. I was referring to actual machine code (x86 hex dump for example) and pointing out that it is possible for some people to read it. But it usually (with rare exception) is not the preferred version for developing and maintaining the program, therefore not source code.
I can read the proposal. It clearly says 'open source'.
The part about the local version was wrong, I apologize. My main point is still valid.
It is absolutely debatable whether planning to open source in several months with no true commitment or recourse is good enough. By which I mean people can legitimately disagree. I prefer to see funding going to projects that are currently open source and have transparent and open development fully visible in github (or similar). That is just my opinion and voting preference of course. Others see it differently.
They may disagree, but the original comment implies the project was closed source:
That makes no sense when the proposal includes open sourcing it.
Same as with @transisto's and @frederikaa's comments.
It is closed source NOW, and I do not support funding it NOW. If and when it may become open source, I will consider supporting funding it.
I don't support funding based on distant future promises with no clear milestones, visible process, and no recourse if the promises aren't satisified. That applies equally to promises of open sourcing as anything else.
That's great. I did not reply to YOU, though.
They did not even read the proposal, is what I am saying,