4 ms·

Why? We all know what "source available" mean and that it's not really open-source.

card_zero 2y ago
Somehow you've all established this phrase with the adjective after the noun. I guess it's stuck like that now. "This software is source-available" as in "this chicken is range-free".
- narism 2y ago
  AKA the postpositive adjective. I do wish they had gone with Available Source Software for the acronym possibilities.
abdullahkhalids 2y ago
Because you can 1. Release the source only for the purpose of studying it. Say some scientific software library's source available so you can check the details of the algorithm. 2. Release the source, and allow you to make improvements to it, but not give any further distribution rights. 3. Release the source, and allow non-commercial users to improve the source and distribute those improvements to other non-commercial users. 4. Release under some dual license. 5. Release under certified Open Source licenses. I would say, most people would only label 1 or 2 as "source available". Over the past few years 3 and 4 are becoming more popular (for whatever reasons - good or bad). So 3 should have a name as well.
- zem 2y ago
  there was another excellent one i saw on HN a few months ago - the game "even the ocean" was open sourced to a great extent, somewhere between 3 and 4 on your list. repeating my comment about it: honestly, i wish the spirit behind that license were easier to formalise and publish - it roughly says "look, this is a game i made and am selling, and i don't want people taking this repo and just cloning the game for free. but we are a community of people making games, and i would love to provide the code and other assets as building blocks that will let other people make their own games more easily." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37626382 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37626382
- josephcsible 2y ago
  3 is absolutely only "source available". For 4, if either of the licenses are open source, then the overall thing is too, but otherwise it's also only "source available".

Somehow you've all established this phrase with the adjective after the noun. I guess it's stuck like that now. "This software is source-available" as in "this chicken is range-free".

narism 2y ago
AKA the postpositive adjective. I do wish they had gone with Available Source Software for the acronym possibilities.

abdullahkhalids 2y ago

Because you can 1. Release the source only for the purpose of studying it. Say some scientific software library's source available so you can check the details of the algorithm. 2. Release the source, and allow you to make improvements to it, but not give any further distribution rights. 3. Release the source, and allow non-commercial users to improve the source and distribute those improvements to other non-commercial users. 4. Release under some dual license. 5. Release under certified Open Source licenses. I would say, most people would only label 1 or 2 as "source available". Over the past few years 3 and 4 are becoming more popular (for whatever reasons - good or bad). So 3 should have a name as well.

zem 2y ago
there was another excellent one i saw on HN a few months ago - the game "even the ocean" was open sourced to a great extent, somewhere between 3 and 4 on your list. repeating my comment about it: honestly, i wish the spirit behind that license were easier to formalise and publish - it roughly says "look, this is a game i made and am selling, and i don't want people taking this repo and just cloning the game for free. but we are a community of people making games, and i would love to provide the code and other assets as building blocks that will let other people make their own games more easily." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37626382 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37626382
josephcsible 2y ago
3 is absolutely only "source available". For 4, if either of the licenses are open source, then the overall thing is too, but otherwise it's also only "source available".