Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
People often use the OSI’s Open Source Definition when using the term “open source”. One of its criteria says “The license must allow modifications and derived works” which this license does not allow.
That’s nice. If your goal is to ever talk to people about open source software, that’s going to create a lot of unnecessary confusion.
On top of that, accepting this bolsters companies to use this kind of a definition specifically to take advantage of the mental model that many people have connecting “open source” with OSI.
If your goal is to ever talk to people about open source software, that’s going to create a lot of unnecessary confusion.
I guess that my definition of open source is not that uncommon, given that the terms “free software” and “libre software” exist and are rather well-established by this point.
The official open-source definition expects more freedoms that just being able to see the source: the whole point of having the source isn’t transparency, it’s freedom. Freedom to fork and modify. Freedom to adapt the code to fix it and make it work for your use case, and share those modifications.
This doesn’t let you modify the code or share your modifications at all.
There’s a difference between source available and open source. For example, actually being allowed to distribute modified versions is pretty damn important:
Restrictions
No Distribution of Modified Versions: You may not distribute modified versions of the software, whether in source or binary form.
No Forking: You may not create, maintain, or distribute a forked version of the software.
Official Distribution: Only the maintainers of the official repository are allowed to distribute the software and its modifications.
What is “actually open source”, if “here’s the source code” is not?
People often use the OSI’s Open Source Definition when using the term “open source”. One of its criteria says “The license must allow modifications and derived works” which this license does not allow.
Which is one of the possible definitions. Mine is “you can see the code”. Everything else falls into “free software”.
That’s nice. If your goal is to ever talk to people about open source software, that’s going to create a lot of unnecessary confusion.
On top of that, accepting this bolsters companies to use this kind of a definition specifically to take advantage of the mental model that many people have connecting “open source” with OSI.
I guess that my definition of open source is not that uncommon, given that the terms “free software” and “libre software” exist and are rather well-established by this point.
The fact that there is overlap has no bearing on whether your definition is common.
The official open-source definition expects more freedoms that just being able to see the source: the whole point of having the source isn’t transparency, it’s freedom. Freedom to fork and modify. Freedom to adapt the code to fix it and make it work for your use case, and share those modifications.
This doesn’t let you modify the code or share your modifications at all.
There’s a difference between source available and open source. For example, actually being allowed to distribute modified versions is pretty damn important: