6 ms·

so now open source is the licensing on not whether the source code is freely visible? "this unlicensed project is closed source, source code is free to browse

so now open source is the licensing on not whether the source code is freely visible? "this unlicensed project is closed source, source code is free to browse >here<"

giantg2 5y ago
How is it closed source if the source is openly available to view?
- auggierose 5y ago
  I think you got the point.
- Mikeb85 5y ago
  There's plenty of closed source software where you can view the source. Open source just means the ability to modify, use and potentially redistribute according to the terms of the license.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    But the quote also says it's unlicensed.
    - roywiggins 5y ago
      If there's no license, then all rights are implicitly reserved by whoever owns the copyright, probably the author, unless it was explicitly placed in the public domain. "distributed unlicensed software (not in the public domain) is fully copyright protected, and therefore legally unusable... Examples of this are unauthorized software leaks or software projects which are placed on public software repositories like GitHub without a specified license" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license#Software_licenses_and_copyright_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license#Software_lice...
      - giantg2 5y ago
        My bad, I took it to mean fully copyleft or dedicated.
    - Mikeb85 5y ago
      Unlicensed is the same as closed source. It's only open source if explicitly stated.
- yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
  If it's not possible for people to (legally) use that source, or to modify or redistribute it, then it's not open source, it's just shared source / source available (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software).
  - giantg2 5y ago
    If it's unlicensed (in the quote) and source is available, then what restrictions are there?
    - rectang 5y ago
      You have no license to use it. Any use would be infringing.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        Not if copyright is not claimed.
        Dylan16807 5y ago
        Copyright is automatic.
        giantg2 5y ago
        True, I mean if you dedicate it or decide not to defend it.
        Dylan16807 5y ago
        It's really splitting hairs to say that dedicating it isn't a license. Especially because you need a fallback license in many countries. Deciding not to defend it means it's still copyright infringement to use the unlicensed code, and they could change their mind at any time.
- devmunchies 5y ago
  that was my point. "open source" is a loaded term.
yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
What? Open source was always about the license, and has never included "shared source" / "source available".
pie_flavor 5y ago
Yes, this is what it has basically always meant to basically everyone who uses it. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd

so now open source is the licensing on not whether the source code is freely visible? "this unlicensed project is closed source, source code is free to browse >here<"

giantg2 5y ago

How is it closed source if the source is openly available to view?

auggierose 5y ago
I think you got the point.
Mikeb85 5y ago
There's plenty of closed source software where you can view the source. Open source just means the ability to modify, use and potentially redistribute according to the terms of the license.
- giantg2 5y ago
  But the quote also says it's unlicensed.
  - roywiggins 5y ago
    If there's no license, then all rights are implicitly reserved by whoever owns the copyright, probably the author, unless it was explicitly placed in the public domain. "distributed unlicensed software (not in the public domain) is fully copyright protected, and therefore legally unusable... Examples of this are unauthorized software leaks or software projects which are placed on public software repositories like GitHub without a specified license" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license#Software_licenses_and_copyright_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license#Software_lice...
    - giantg2 5y ago
      My bad, I took it to mean fully copyleft or dedicated.
  - Mikeb85 5y ago
    Unlicensed is the same as closed source. It's only open source if explicitly stated.
yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
If it's not possible for people to (legally) use that source, or to modify or redistribute it, then it's not open source, it's just shared source / source available (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software).
- giantg2 5y ago
  If it's unlicensed (in the quote) and source is available, then what restrictions are there?
  - rectang 5y ago
    You have no license to use it. Any use would be infringing.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      Not if copyright is not claimed.
      - Dylan16807 5y ago
        Copyright is automatic.
        giantg2 5y ago
        True, I mean if you dedicate it or decide not to defend it.
        Dylan16807 5y ago
        It's really splitting hairs to say that dedicating it isn't a license. Especially because you need a fallback license in many countries. Deciding not to defend it means it's still copyright infringement to use the unlicensed code, and they could change their mind at any time.
devmunchies 5y ago
that was my point. "open source" is a loaded term.

yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago

What? Open source was always about the license, and has never included "shared source" / "source available".

pie_flavor 5y ago

Yes, this is what it has basically always meant to basically everyone who uses it. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd