4 ms·
To be fair, I myself was ignorant of the difference between open-source and source-available. This whole time I thought releasing the source code under a licen
by Bjorkbat 2y ago
To be fair, I myself was ignorant of the difference between open-source and source-available. This whole time I thought releasing the source code under a license that restricts commercial use was just as open-source as releasing something with an MIT license.
Good to know I suppose.
- opan 2y agoThe Four Freedoms of free software or the Open Source Definition may clear things up, for those who haven't read them. You can sell CDs with Emacs on them!
- kazinator 2y agoIt is just as open source. If the source is available, you can open it in an editor. There you go: open source. It's just not Open Source according to the OSI people who believe they own the term. They do not hold a trademark on the term. https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/8367/is-the-term-open-source-a-trademark https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/8367/is-the-t... The term "open" has been used as a weasel words in the industry before OSI and "open source". Off the top of my head: "The Open Group", "Open Software Foundation", "X/Open", "Open Look", "OpenStep", "OpenGL", "OpenMax", "OpenType", ... It's best to use more specific terms like "BSD licensed", "MIT licensed" or "Copyleft". Or FOSS. "FOSS" is a thing because open source isn't necessarily free due to the conflation with source-available.