3 ms·

if it's open source but in a private repo, couldn't somebody just make a public mirror? open source implies the right to redistribute source code.

• usr1106 4y ago
  Open source has no formal definition. There are tons of different licenses. They can be OSI-approved or not. Edit: I doubt the license for this code is an OSI-approved one with this registration business. But I have not checked and I won't check.
  • chupasaurus 4y ago
    It's under EULA.
  • perlgeek 4y ago
    There is a trademark for "Open Source", and if you want to use it without written approval from OSI, you have to use it for something under an OSI-approved license: https://opensource.org/trademark-guidelines#Usage_That_Does_Not_Require_Permission https://opensource.org/trademark-guidelines#Usage_That_Does_... I think this is the closest you can come to a "formal definition", short of a law defining the term.
    • wgjordan 4y ago
      If you read the page you linked more carefully, you will see that OSI does not own a valid trademark for "Open Source", only for "Open Source Initiative". OSI in fact tried to file for a trademark on 'Open Source' in 1999 [1], but failed because the term is 'too descriptive'. [1] https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...