• Penta@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    62
    ·
    2 months ago

    Well snap itself isn’t proprietary, the backend server distributing the snaps is.

    • frazorth@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Explain how this distinction matters in the real world?

      Snap distribution is as much a part of snaps as Snapd.

      Who cares that part of it is open source if other parts aren’t?

      • Draconic NEO@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        If Canonical folded Snap could be taken over by others who could build new server software for it, either from scratch or based off the other projects to develop alternative servers for it, and modify snap to accept multiple repos like that. That’s the difference, also just being able to fork snap like that. Though the fact it hasn’t been done says something about how many real snap enthusiasts there actually are.

        • frazorth@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          2 months ago

          If Canonical folded, someone else could come along and reinvent everything on the server side. And that makes it Open Source?

          • Draconic NEO@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 months ago

            What makes it open source is the fact that the parts which matter most are open source. The part that installs on the system is open source, and because of that it can be more easily tweaked and modified to accept other servers. In actuality it can be modified to do so right now, it’s just that there is little reason to do so because the amount of people enthusiastic about snap isn’t very large, as it has many other problems besides just the centralized server infra.