4 ms·
Nope. This is tied to the whole "Free as in speech, not beer" thing. Open Source has core definitions around the freedoms (the "speech") allowed to people when
by cthalupa 3y ago
Nope. This is tied to the whole "Free as in speech, not beer" thing.
Open Source has core definitions around the freedoms (the "speech") allowed to people when making use of that source code.
Source available makes the source code available for free (the "beer") along with certain specific freedoms, but not all of the freedoms that would be required to be Open Source.
Whether or not you think those missing freedoms are important is a matter of personal opinion, I suppose. I think they are, which is why I try to avoid source available software if there is a reasonable open source alternative.
- kelnos 3y agoSource available need not be free as in beer, though. A company can charge for it, and of course restrict distribution.
- cthalupa 3y agoVery true. I suppose I should have clarified that source available in the context of a lot of these formerly open source projects, and not as a blanket term.
- darby_eight 3y agoYou seem to be conflating open source with free software—open source implies free as in beer, not speech.