3 ms·
> So why is "source-available" recommended? Based on how and when it's usually used it's a derogatory term employed to intentionally denigrate the choice of li
by huhtenberg 2y ago
> So why is "source-available" recommended?
Based on how and when it's usually used it's a derogatory term employed to intentionally denigrate the choice of license.
- simonw 2y agoI've honestly never considered "source available" as a derogatory term. If you release your source code so people can look at it but you're not using an Open Source license I think it's a perfectly respectful (and often self-selected) way to describe something.
- huhtenberg 2y agoAn OSI license with the Commons Clause merely prohibits for-profit use, which is a reasonable restriction in very many cases. It's clearly more than just "source available", yet it's still being stuffed into the same bucket, because the freedom to repackage and resell under a different name is withdrawn.
- simonw 2y agoAn OSI license with the Commons Clause no longer fits the Open Source definition. I'm not saying it's not a reasonable restriction, but it's not "Open Source" any more. I care because I want to know exactly what it means when something is described to me "Open Source". The OSI definition has been around since 2006.