Although, the problem is not so single-layered. Do I understand the situation correctly, in case of iOS, to not be subject to additional limitations of the platform that restricts the distribution of your products to the extents that the laws of the countries where your business is registered require, all the user has to do is to fork the main repo (which is, thankfully, BSD), build a minimally acceptable GUI, pass Apple certification, publish the app in the app store, and Bob's your uncle?
Thats actually a good way to split a project up into closed/open imho. Open the functional part so people can see you're not sending data to hq behind their backs and make the boring time consuming ui closed. I like it. Then make money out of a service rather than the software. As we all know, tech people will see a piece if challenging software and go out of their way to replicate it and release it for free, for whatever reasons. So open sourcing that part takes the challenge away.
Let's stop moving the goalposts. Open source has a specific definition, and "they merge whatever code I want them to" isn't part of it. Just fork the client, compile it, and run it yourself.
can you say more about this. I've been considering adding tailscale to some products but if my (nerd) perspective is to survive corporate realism I need more than a 1-liner to justify. seriously curious. Also how would I pitch it to a EU based crowd that wants increasingly less to do with US based tech?
I stand corrected.
Although, the problem is not so single-layered. Do I understand the situation correctly, in case of iOS, to not be subject to additional limitations of the platform that restricts the distribution of your products to the extents that the laws of the countries where your business is registered require, all the user has to do is to fork the main repo (which is, thankfully, BSD), build a minimally acceptable GUI, pass Apple certification, publish the app in the app store, and Bob's your uncle?
Thats actually a good way to split a project up into closed/open imho. Open the functional part so people can see you're not sending data to hq behind their backs and make the boring time consuming ui closed. I like it. Then make money out of a service rather than the software. As we all know, tech people will see a piece if challenging software and go out of their way to replicate it and release it for free, for whatever reasons. So open sourcing that part takes the challenge away.
Does that include android?
https://github.com/tailscale/tailscale-android
Nice, thanks.
Being open source means very little when they won't merge PRs, like this one to support disabling streaming one's network behavior to ` log.tailscale.com`: https://github.com/tailscale/tailscale-android/pull/695
Let's stop moving the goalposts. Open source has a specific definition, and "they merge whatever code I want them to" isn't part of it. Just fork the client, compile it, and run it yourself.
“Just” lmfao
Versus any mildly-technical user being able to stumble into the option and discover they're being spied on in the first place.
You control what software you install
Open source = I should be able to fork it, change it, and use it
Open source = The maintainers should build exactly what I hysterically scream at them
If I had to choose one definition of open source from these two options, it's going to option 1 I'm afraid.
Once again confusing Open Source with Free Software.
Neither "open source" nor "free software" has ever meant that the developers must accept contributions from third parties.
Literally nothing to do with that distinction.
It seems to have a BSD license, what more are you looking for?
can you say more about this. I've been considering adding tailscale to some products but if my (nerd) perspective is to survive corporate realism I need more than a 1-liner to justify. seriously curious. Also how would I pitch it to a EU based crowd that wants increasingly less to do with US based tech?
For one, Tailscale is a Canadian company :)