5 ms·

I honestly don’t care if it is or not, but this has been discussed to death with regard to unreal and the consensus has been (from epic) to consistently refer t

I honestly don’t care if it is or not, but this has been discussed to death with regard to unreal and the consensus has been (from epic) to consistently refer to the source as “available on GitHub” not as “open source”, because that gives people an incorrect impression of the permissiveness of the license. Is this a hill you really want to die on? It doesn’t matter at all. The “can see code” = “must be open source” argument is stupid because it’s entirely opinion based. You cannot be right about it. It depends what you choose to define “open source” as. If you define it as some arbitrary thing (eg. I can read the source code) then of course you’re right. …but you can’t force other people to accept your arbitrary definition. You can only have an opinion about it. Same as anyone else. Is it really worth the argument? Source available is unambiguous, being explicit (“source can be download from GitHub”) I means you don’t have to waste your time on arguments like this for, what seems, truely trivial reasons.

tcfhgj 3y ago
"because that gives people an incorrect impression of the permissiveness of the license" How does it? "Source available is unambiguous" It's not, because it could be hidden behind a pay wall.
- alexvoda 3y ago
  If it's behind a pay wall it's not available, it's closed. But you may call source-available software whatever you want, just not open source unless it's under and OSI-approved license. You can use any words other than the phrase "open source" to be as unambiguous as you want.
- wokwokwok 3y ago
  I don’t understand. If you feel it’s not explicit enough be more explicit (source is available from xxx of you login or whatever). If you want a legal opinion, get a lawyer, that’s what they do. If you just want to do what’s “normal”, take a successful project (eg. Unreal) and do what they do. It seems like a total non issue.

tcfhgj 3y ago

"because that gives people an incorrect impression of the permissiveness of the license" How does it? "Source available is unambiguous" It's not, because it could be hidden behind a pay wall.

alexvoda 3y ago
If it's behind a pay wall it's not available, it's closed. But you may call source-available software whatever you want, just not open source unless it's under and OSI-approved license. You can use any words other than the phrase "open source" to be as unambiguous as you want.
wokwokwok 3y ago
I don’t understand. If you feel it’s not explicit enough be more explicit (source is available from xxx of you login or whatever). If you want a legal opinion, get a lawyer, that’s what they do. If you just want to do what’s “normal”, take a successful project (eg. Unreal) and do what they do. It seems like a total non issue.