6 ms·
Open source doesn't just mean that the source is publicly available, either, though. This definitely isn't an open source license: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org
by adambrenecki 8y ago
Open source doesn't just mean that the source is publicly available, either, though. This definitely isn't an open source license: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/blob/master/LICENSE https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/blob/master/LICENSE
- ng12 8y agoWhy not? You can modify/redistribute it, you can't just deploy it to production without having a valid subscription. It's not Free Software, but it is Open Source.
- the_af 8y agoFree Software and Open Source's differences are more philosophical than technical/legal [0]. This means that if something cannot be Free Software it cannot, more often than not, be Open Source either. If you cannot deploy it without a paid subscription, it's not Open Source by most commonly accepted definitions of the term. ---- [0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.en....
- mindcrime 8y agoIt's not Open Source because the terms aren't compliant with the OSD[1]. And while the OSD may not be a de-jure definition of "Open Source" it is the de-facto definition in the popular vernacular around this subject. [1]: https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated