3 ms·
Open source isn't a term exclusively owned and defined by the OSI. You can define it however you like, but that term has long been used to describe projects th
by jonfw 6y ago
Open source isn't a term exclusively owned and defined by the OSI.
You can define it however you like, but that term has long been used to describe projects that don't quite fit in OSI's box.
To be clear- I think OSI has the best definition that I would like to see- but 'somewhat open source' is certainly better than nothing.
- bachmeier 6y agoI very strongly disagree. Historically, the whole point of open source is that you get a license that specifies your rights. You want software that you know you can use and modify even if the original author later doesn't approve. "Somewhat open source" is simply not open source in the way that term is used. (Naturally, you're free to redefine the term for your own usage, but that doesn't change anything.) Edit: Past terms used for this type of license are freeware and source available, but that doesn't make them open source.
- EvanAnderson 6y agoI think those of us who like the OSI definition of "Open Source" should actively push back on use of the term to mean something other than the OSI definition. I'd rather see licenses like the BSL called "source available" or some such.
- tommoor 6y agoYea, at this point we're careful to only use the language of open source where it applies, for example our editor _is_ OSI compatible