3 ms·
> It's with open source but not free software What do you mean?
by randoramax 7y ago
> It's with open source but not free software
What do you mean?
- rovr138 7y agoOpen source does not have to be free. For example, you buy the software and with it you also get the source code.
- mikekchar 7y agoThe most common definition of "open source" is pretty much indistinguishable from free software. The only real difference is the overall goal of the two movements. The term open source comes from the OSI: https://opensource.org/ https://opensource.org/ The definition of "open source" is here: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd Before the OSI nobody used the term "open source". It was coined by Eric Raymond (ESR). I can't think of any way it would be correct to use the term in a different context.
- cheesie 7y ago>Open source does not have to be free. If we're using the common definition that everyone in the industry uses, then it actually does. In fact, Open source was coined in 1998 because we needed a term with a precise and well defined meaning. I don't know anyone who uses the term open source in the way you describe.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- abstractbeliefs 7y agoThe source is available (open), but there are restrictions in what you can use the source and software for - in this case, no commercial development is explicitly stated. Is this way while it is open and gratis (for some uses), it is not libre. Additionally, creative commons do not recommend their license for source code and software works because software has specific needs that cc was not developed with in mind.
- dragonwriter 7y agoSo, it's source-available, not Open Source.