3 ms·

I think your choice is very appropriate. And it is open source. Probably not OSI-open source or FSF-open source but it is open source, period.

• emacsen 2y ago
  "It's not recognized as Open Source by the Open Source body, and doesn't meet the criteria of Free/Open Source Software, but is Open Source" is a bit like saying "I used GMO and petroleum based pesticides, but my produce is all organic."
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • josephernest 2y ago
    But here the source is open! Why should we restrict the meaning of Opel Source, a societal mouvement since decades, to a list of criteria that FSF or OSI decided? Open source is not a trade mark by FSF or OSI. OP did not say it is free/libre software, but just open source, which it is. We don't need "source available", just open source is correct. PS: can you define the open source body in your previous comment?
    • emacsen 2y ago
      Why should words like "organic" in relation to food mean without pesticides? I mean all carbon and water based life forms are organic, right? I can define Open Source easily, using the OSI definition. There is not a trademark for Open Source because they failed to secure the trademark, but we have decades of use for the term meaning something specific.