> If you want your software be OSS, well, don't conceal the source. That's what struck me as odd too. #2 of the OSI "Open Source Definition" seems useful.

> If you want your software be OSS, well, don't conceal the source. That's what struck me as odd too. #2 of the OSI "Open Source Definition" seems useful. The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost, preferably downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed. So charging for a reasonable reproduction fee is fine, but a subscription would seem to violate the spirit of this, since the subscription isn't being paid to github for their cost of reproduction. AFAICT, the fee is paid to the developers, not to anyone that does any actual reproduction.