I can't find any way to review the source code. I emailed zenju [at] freefilesync.org about it on 17/05/2025 at 17:57, but haven't received a response. I plan to follow up.
He originally replied to me via a question I written on forum [at] freefilesync.org.
I financially contributed to the project, so it's becoming embarrassing to see that it may no longer be open-source—or worse, that it might be intentionally mislabeled as such.
Is this project really open source?
- Posts: 4
- Joined: 17 May 2025
-
- Posts: 2978
- Joined: 22 Aug 2012
On https://freefilesync.org/download.php , you find the most recent source code, presently https://freefilesync.org/download/FreeFileSync_14.3_Source.zip
On https://freefilesync.org/archive.php you find the source code
of all previous versions, down to version 1.0
On https://freefilesync.org/archive.php you find the source code
of all previous versions, down to version 1.0
- Posts: 4
- Joined: 17 May 2025
Thx Plerry, I was looking for a git, my bad...
I don't see how to contribute easily then
I don't see how to contribute easily then
- Posts: 4908
- Joined: 11 Jun 2019
Why 14.3?On https://freefilesync.org/download.php , you find the most recent source code, presently https://freefilesync.org/download/FreeFileSync_14.3_Source.zip
On https://freefilesync.org/archive.php you find the source code
of all previous versions, down to version 1.0 Plerry, 23 May 2025, 19:18
https://freefilesync.org/download/FreeFileSync_14.9_Source.zip
-
- Posts: 2978
- Joined: 22 Aug 2012
> Why 14.3?
Because at the time of my above reply (23 May 2025, almost a year ago), v14.3 was the then ("presently") most recent version, ...
Because at the time of my above reply (23 May 2025, almost a year ago), v14.3 was the then ("presently") most recent version, ...
- Posts: 4908
- Joined: 11 Jun 2019
LOL I didn't even notice, my bad> Why 14.3?
Because at the time of my above reply (23 May 2025, almost a year ago), v14.3 was the then ("presently") most recent version, ... Plerry, 03 May 2026, 17:46
- Posts: 346
- Joined: 7 Jan 2018
Open Source does mean that the code base is available for a community to contribute to and collaborate on. That's not related to the license of the code. SQLite is that way too. They famously don't care about user contributions.
But you could fork this project and share your own improvements. There are mirrors of this around, although I don't know of any that add changes to the project (other than to build in particular environments).
But you could fork this project and share your own improvements. There are mirrors of this around, although I don't know of any that add changes to the project (other than to build in particular environments).
-
- Posts: 2978
- Joined: 22 Aug 2012
> Open Source does mean that the code base is available for a community to contribute to and collaborate on.
The part in above quote I highlighted in bold is not a general characteric of open source software. E.g.
Wikipedia: "Open-source software may be developed in a collaborative, public manner."
Google: "... Community-Driven: Often developed by a community of developers rather than a single entity, allowing for rapid innovation"
The part in above quote I highlighted in bold is not a general characteric of open source software. E.g.
Wikipedia: "Open-source software may be developed in a collaborative, public manner."
Google: "... Community-Driven: Often developed by a community of developers rather than a single entity, allowing for rapid innovation"
- Posts: 4
- Joined: 17 May 2025
> Open Source does mean that the code base is available for a community to contribute to and collaborate on.
Exactly, so I think the author of freefilesync is unable to collaborate.
Personally I will not work with ppl not collaborating.
Exactly, so I think the author of freefilesync is unable to collaborate.
Personally I will not work with ppl not collaborating.
-
- Posts: 2978
- Joined: 22 Aug 2012
> so I think the author of freefilesync is unable to collaborate
It's quite a presumptuous statement that the author is unable to collaborate.
The author simply chooses not to collaborate
> Personally I will not work with ppl not collaborating.
That's your choice, like it is the author's choice not to collaborate in developing the FFS code.
But that does not make FFS less open source.
In line with (amongst others) above definitions, the possibility to contribute to and collaborate is not a prerequisite to qualify as open source software, merely an optional aspect.
So, your "exactly" is inappropriate.
It's quite a presumptuous statement that the author is unable to collaborate.
The author simply chooses not to collaborate
> Personally I will not work with ppl not collaborating.
That's your choice, like it is the author's choice not to collaborate in developing the FFS code.
But that does not make FFS less open source.
In line with (amongst others) above definitions, the possibility to contribute to and collaborate is not a prerequisite to qualify as open source software, merely an optional aspect.
So, your "exactly" is inappropriate.
- Posts: 4
- Joined: 17 May 2025
> The author simply chooses not to collaborate
exactly, thanks for the precision. same for my choice too.
So until the author try to collaborate on any git platform I will consider donate again.
> So, your "exactly" is inappropriate.
yes, and please notice that I reused this word.
exactly, thanks for the precision. same for my choice too.
So until the author try to collaborate on any git platform I will consider donate again.
> So, your "exactly" is inappropriate.
yes, and please notice that I reused this word.
- Posts: 16
- Joined: 9 Jun 2026
Just fork https://github.com/hkneptune/FreeFileSync and let us know about any meaningful contributions.
