3 ms·
If the source code is publicly available, it's Open Source, however much we may dislike the actual license.
by mellosouls 3y ago
If the source code is publicly available, it's Open Source, however much we may dislike the actual license.
- bakugo 3y agoSource Available is not necessarily Open Source. https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/
- mellosouls 3y agoThat's one definition. There are many.
- janosdebugs 3y agoIt is not publicly available. If you click on this link you get a 404 page: https://github.com/EpicGames/UnrealEngine https://github.com/EpicGames/UnrealEngine You actually have to go and subscribe, agree to their terms, and then you get to view the source code. It happens to be free, but it is by no means "public". (I also don't have a problem with their license. Their business model is more than fair.)
- eesmith 3y agoThat's an incomplete, if not useless, definition. I sell a source code license to my software. It does not allow redistribution. Any member of the public can pay me for a copy under that license. That fits your definition but no one meaningfully calls my software Open Source. Using that term your way in general conversation is only going to confuse things. We already have terms like "source available" which fit your needs and which are far less ambiguous or contentious. The arguments over what "open source" means, in a software license context, was generally resolved many years ago.