2 ms·
To be fair, "source available" could also mean a fully custom license, closer to a typical proprietary closed-source license, except with "btw here's some sourc
by Nextgrid 3y ago
To be fair, "source available" could also mean a fully custom license, closer to a typical proprietary closed-source license, except with "btw here's some source code, but you're not really allowed to do anything with it".
Even in the above scenario, source-available is still better because you at least have the technical possibility of doing something with it, at the cost of potential litigation for breach of license.
- ezekg 3y agoYes, in theory. But in practice, I haven't seen a popular "source-available" license that limits your ability to fork. So making a blanket statement like that is wrong in practice, but people still tout it. That's the problem with the term "source-available" and why a lot of companies using these licenses avoid the term altogether.
- Pannoniae 3y agoBut if you say "open source" instead of "source available" then you get the OSI folks flaming you for not comforming to the definition. It's a lose-lose situation.