Comment by nerdile
Comment by nerdile 5 days ago
That's fine. It's just not open source. Don't call it open source if it's not.
Definition: https://opensource.org/osd
Comment by nerdile 5 days ago
That's fine. It's just not open source. Don't call it open source if it's not.
Definition: https://opensource.org/osd
> If the source is open to read, for me it's open source
Not everyone agrees with the OSI definition but I'd say almost noone agrees with that definition there.
I think most people understand what you are describing as "Source Available". Could even be a commercial project.
It's not. Open Source has its own definition.
You can define however you want, but it's not Open Source. What you mean is "source available".
This reminds me of the discussion of whether if open source AI models are open source or not, when the training data is not available to the public.
I mean this lists MIT license as opensource license, when it's clearly not, because it doesn't at all mention source code. The license just talks about "software".
Anyone is free to publish only binaries+docs under this license, if they wish.
So the website is not very accurate.
>Free and open-source software (FOSS) or free/libre and open-source software (FLOSS) is openly shared source code that is licensed without any restrictions on usage, modification, or distribution. Confusion persists about this definition because the "free", also known as "libre", refers to the freedom of the product, not the price, expense, cost, or charge. For example, "being free to speak" is not the same as "free beer".
I generally think of open source as where I can see the code and freely modify it, not necessarily freely commercialize it on my own.
I think I'm about where you are in all this, I see NC (restrictions that activities are non-commercial; like CC-NC) as being 'open source'.
Sure, I can't take your work, cut you off, then sell that work as if it were my own... but without explicit encouragement to do that (*), honour should inhibit that.
(* I'm aware some licenses give explicit encouragement to commercially exploit -- I just don't think that is the boundary for open source)
the FSF/OSI are big on emphasizing that "free/open" means more than exposing the designs and mechanisms; it means guaranteeing certain freedoms and rights to the users of your software.
what you're describing is usually called "source-available".
If open source doesn't specify a license that is it under then you should only assume that the source has been made available. Both GPL and Apache licensing are considered open source, even though apache is more permissive for commercial derivatives. No one calls GPL "source-available" in common conversation regardless of OSI's opinion.
As well as some variants of BSD licenses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
>Two variants of the license, the New BSD License/Modified BSD License (3-clause), and the Simplified BSD License/FreeBSD License (2-clause) have been verified as GPL-compatible free software licenses by the Free Software Foundation, and have been vetted as open source licenses by the Open Source Initiative. The original, 4-clause BSD license has not been accepted as an open source license and, although the original is considered to be a free software license by the FSF, the FSF does not consider it to be compatible with the GPL due to the advertising clause.
Not everyone agrees with this definition. If the source is open to read, for me it's open source. The website you linked is an opinionated view on what open source is.