4 ms·
"Source-available" is already the established term for this kind of software, not sure what you are talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-availabl
by mepian 3y ago
"Source-available" is already the established term for this kind of software, not sure what you are talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software
- rendaw 3y ago"Free and open source (FOSS)" is another established term, for the opposite, so I'm not sure this proves anything.
- jraph 3y agoIt's not the opposite. Source-available is a requirement of FLOSS (or FOSS). FOSS is "source-available" + other guarantees.
- Narishma 3y agoDoes that term really apply to this? You can modify and distribute the source. The only thing you can't do is sell it.
- Pet_Ant 3y agoYes, because the OSI doesn’t recognize it as such.
- gfosco 3y agoI don't recognize the OSI as any authority to define words.
- mannerheim 3y ago> Open-source software (OSS) is computer software that is released under a license in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software and its source code to anyone and for any purpose.[1][2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software
- hgs3 3y agoThe OSI once applied to the USPTO for a trademark on "open source" and was denied [1]. [1] https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...
- jraph 3y agoThis is fine, but you don't get to decide what people mean when they say "open source", and usually they mean this definition.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]