Cs Source 2 NEW! Download

The tag_hash_106 HTML element specifies one or more media resources for the , , and elements. It is a void element, which means that it has no content and does not require a closing tag. This element is commonly used to offer the same media content in multiple file formats in order to provide compatibility with a broad range of browsers given their differing support for image file formats and media file formats.

Each string in the list must have either a width descriptor or a pixel density descriptor to be valid. These two descriptors should not be used together; only one should be used consistently throughout the list. The value of each descriptor in the list must be unique. The browser chooses the most adequate image to display at a given point of time based on these descriptors. If the descriptors are not specified, the default value used is 1x. If the sizes attribute is also present, then each string must include a width descriptor. If the browser does not support srcset, then src will be used for the default image source.

Cs Source 2 Download

DOWNLOAD 🔥 https://shurll.com/2y4O3p 🔥

The list consists of source sizes separated by commas. Each source size is media condition-length pair. Before laying the page out, the browser uses this information to determine which image defined in srcset to display. Note that sizes will take effect only if width descriptors are provided with srcset, not pixel density descriptors (i.e., 200w should be used instead of 2x).

This example demonstrates how to offer an alternate source file for viewports above a certain width. When a user's browsing environment meets the specified media condition, the associated element is chosen. The contents of its src attribute are then requested and rendered. If the media condition does not match, the browser will move on to the next in the list. The second option in the code below has no media condition, so it will be selected for all other browsing contexts.

The content on this website, of which Opensource.org is the author, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Opensource.org is not the author of any of the licenses reproduced on this site. Questions about the copyright in a license should be directed to the license steward.

Open-source software (OSS) is computer software that is released under a license in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software and its source code to anyone and for any purpose.[1][2] Open-source software may be developed in a collaborative, public manner. Open-source software is a prominent example of open collaboration, meaning any capable user is able to participate online in development, making the number of possible contributors indefinite. The ability to examine the code facilitates public trust in the software.[3]

Open-source software development can bring in diverse perspectives beyond those of a single company. A 2008 report by the Standish Group stated that adoption of open-source software models has resulted in savings of about $60 billion per year for consumers.[4][5]

Open-source code can be used for studying and allows capable end users to adapt software to their personal needs in a similar way user scripts and custom style sheets allow for web sites, and eventually publish the modification as a fork for users with similar preferences, and directly submit possible improvements as pull requests.

Netscape's act prompted Raymond and others to look into how to bring the Free Software Foundation's free software ideas and perceived benefits to the commercial software industry. They concluded that FSF's social activism was not appealing to companies like Netscape, and looked for a way to rebrand the free software movement to emphasize the business potential of sharing and collaborating on software source code.[9] The new term they chose was "open source", which was soon adopted by Bruce Perens, publisher Tim O'Reilly, Linus Torvalds, and others. The Open Source Initiative was founded in February 1998 to encourage the use of the new term and evangelize open-source principles.[10]

While the Open Source Initiative sought to encourage the use of the new term and evangelize the principles it adhered to, commercial software vendors found themselves increasingly threatened by the concept of freely distributed software and universal access to an application's source code. Microsoft executive Jim Allchin publicly stated in 2001 that "open source is an intellectual property destroyer. I can't imagine something that could be worse than this for the software business and the intellectual-property business."[11] However, while free and open-source software (FOSS) has historically played a role outside of the mainstream of private software development, companies as large as Microsoft have begun to develop official open-source presences on the Internet. IBM, Oracle, Google, and State Farm are just a few of the companies with a serious public stake in today's competitive open-source market. There has been a significant shift in the corporate philosophy concerning the development of FOSS.[12]

The Open Source Definition presents an open-source philosophy and further defines the terms of use, modification and redistribution of open-source software. Software licenses grant rights to users which would otherwise be reserved by copyright law to the copyright holder. Several open-source software licenses have qualified within the boundaries of the Open Source Definition. The most prominent and popular example is the GNU General Public License (GPL), which "allows free distribution under the condition that further developments and applications are put under the same licence", thus also free.[18]

The open source label came out of a strategy session held on April 7, 1998, in Palo Alto in reaction to Netscape's January 1998 announcement of a source code release for Navigator (as Mozilla). A group of individuals at the session included Tim O'Reilly, Linus Torvalds, Tom Paquin, Jamie Zawinski, Larry Wall, Brian Behlendorf, Sameer Parekh, Eric Allman, Greg Olson, Paul Vixie, John Ousterhout, Guido van Rossum, Philip Zimmermann, John Gilmore and Eric S. Raymond.[19] They used the opportunity before the release of Navigator's source code to clarify a potential confusion caused by the ambiguity of the word "free" in English.

The Open Source Initiative's (OSI) definition is recognized by several governments internationally[24] as the standard or de facto definition. OSI uses The Open Source Definition to determine whether it considers a software license open source. The definition was based on the Debian Free Software Guidelines, written and adapted primarily by Perens.[25][26][27] Perens did not base his writing on the "four freedoms" from the Free Software Foundation (FSF), which were only widely available later.[28]

Under Perens' definition, open source is a broad software license that makes source code available to the general public with relaxed or non-existent restrictions on the use and modification of the code. It is an explicit "feature" of open source that it puts very few restrictions on the use or distribution by any organization or user, in order to enable the rapid evolution of the software.[29]

According to Feller et al. (2005), the terms "free software" and "open source software" should be applied to any "software products distributed under terms that allow users" to use, modify, and redistribute the software "in any manner they see fit, without requiring that they pay the author(s) of the software a royalty or fee for engaging in the listed activities."[30]

Despite initially accepting it,[31] Richard Stallman of the FSF now flatly opposes the term "Open Source" being applied to what they refer to as "free software". Although he agrees that the two terms describe "almost the same category of software", Stallman considers equating the terms incorrect and misleading.[32] Stallman also opposes the professed pragmatism of the Open Source Initiative, as he fears that the free software ideals of freedom and community are threatened by compromising on the FSF's idealistic standards for software freedom.[33] The FSF considers free software to be a subset of open-source software, and Richard Stallman explained that DRM software, for example, can be developed as open source, despite that it does not give its users freedom (it restricts them), and thus does not qualify as free software.[34] e24fc04721