4 ms·
"Open Source" [...] just means you can view the source. No. See, for example, the Open Source Definition [1] by the Open Source Initiative [2] which opens with
by waitwhat 15y ago
"Open Source" [...] just means you can view the source.
No. See, for example, the Open Source Definition [1] by the Open Source Initiative [2] which opens with the statement "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code." Wikipedia states that their "definition is widely recognized as the standard or de facto definition." [3]
You can publish your code open source, charge for it and still forbid people to sell it or even redistribute the source.
Again, no. The Open Source Definition states that "The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software" and "The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form."
Note that the term "Open Source" isn't trademarked [3] (YMMV), so you can call pretty much anything you want Open Source (IANAL), but that doesn't mean that anyone else would be likely to agree with you. In much the same way, I can point at the small wooden giraffe on my bookcase and call it a delicious slice of blueberry cheesecake, but you probably wouldn't agree with me and it is unlikely to taste good.
Microsoft once wanted to achieve something similar to what you wrote. But even ten years ago they recognised that their goal wouldn't be recognised as "open source", and so they called their program "shared source." [4]
"Open Source" is not a license. GPL, BSD, MIT, Apache etc. are all open source licenses with very different rules.
This is true as far as it goes (although the use of "very" is certainly arguable), and it is even worth remarking that open source licenses are often mutually-incompatible. However open source licenses all have certain features in common [1], and when talking about these commonalities, it is not unreasonable to use the phrase "open source license" rather than writing "GPL, BSD, MIT, Apache etc." each and every time.
[1] http://www.opensource.org/osd.html http://www.opensource.org/osd.html
[2] http://www.opensource.org/ http://www.opensource.org/
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Definitions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Definition...
[4] http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/default.mspx http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/default.mspx
- eis 15y agoYou are right, very good points. So maybe I was wrong but I dealt with open source earlier than the OSI came up with the definition. What they call "Open Source" is more "Free (as in freedom, libre) Software" to me. I guess my definition is outdated but I still feel "Open Source" should just mean, well... open source :) What's the difference between "Free Software" and "Open Source" as coined by OSI?
- mapleoin 15y agoAPL/MIT/BSD/GPL are open source. GPL is the only free software though.
- archangel_one 15y agoThis is not the case. GPL is the only strong copyleft license of those, but they are all free software licenses according to the FSF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FSF_approved_software_licenses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FSF_approved_software_l...).
- inimino 15y agoActually, free software as defined by the FSF is any software licensed such that you can use it, modify the source, redistribute it, and redistribute changed copies of it. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html and the (long) list of free software licenses http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- dalke 15y agohttp://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.h...
- jbellis 15y agoMicrosoft came up with the term "shared source" to describe "you can look at the source but you have no rights to modify or redistribute it."
- stonemetal 15y agoThere isn't one. The only difference is who's ego you stroke ESR(Open Source), or RMS(Free Software). From the history of the OSI: The conferees decided it was time to dump the moralizing and confrontational attitude that had been associated with "free software" in the past and sell the idea strictly on the same pragmatic, business-case grounds that had motivated Netscape. The only difference is marketing not substance.