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.
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.
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.
Everyone has a different opinion on what that means, some people get really angry when you don’t use their (or some other group’s) explicit definition of the term “open source” that nobody actually owns. If they want it to mean something really specific, they should use a registered trade name with a defined meaning. But that usually implies some kind of capitalism at work, which most FOSS zealots are very much against.
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”.
The term that is often used for that is “source available”. Good example of other software in this category would be what, Unreal Engine?
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.
@tux0r You are right that this mistaken definition is quite common. Smart person would try to correct the mistake, not defend it.
There’s a difference between source available and open source. For example, actually being allowed to distribute modified versions is pretty damn important:
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.
Everyone has a different opinion on what that means, some people get really angry when you don’t use their (or some other group’s) explicit definition of the term “open source” that nobody actually owns. If they want it to mean something really specific, they should use a registered trade name with a defined meaning. But that usually implies some kind of capitalism at work, which most FOSS zealots are very much against.