4 ms·

Regarding number 2: by that definition of yours, Microsoft Shared Source Initiative in the early 2000s was also "open source". See the problem with not having a

• sam0x17 8y ago
  People wouldn't say "free and open source" or "a permissive open source license" if "open source" was already sufficiently descriptive, so I think in the back of their minds people already believe what I put forward here, at least a little bit. If the source code is available to the general public, it is open source. The source code is in the open. If a company decides to release source code with no license at all to redistribute or modify, solely so people can verify that their software does what they say it does, they still should be applauded for at least sharing their code rather than keeping it closed source, and what they would be doing would in my book still be "open source". Once again, if the source code is open, it is open source. If this wasn't the common definition, then people would never say "permissive open source license" because it would be implied. Instead we have created this environment where if you aren't willing to "go all the way" and give people the right to modify/redistribute your code in some permissive way, you are basically pressured to not release your code at all. As a community we would have access to more code bases if this wasn't true. I totally agree that companies should embrace permissive open source licenses, but when that doesn't make sense, I totally think they should embrace non-permissive open source licenses. This is a minority opinion, however.