3 ms·

Generally speaking, that's not what "open source" means. Reading the license agreement is always required to determine if that's actually okay to do. In this ca

by jxf 13y ago

Generally speaking, that's not what "open source" means. Reading the license agreement is always required to determine if that's actually okay to do. In this case it's okay as long as you reproduce the license in any redistributions (e.g. hosting it on GitHub).

petermonsson 13y ago
The original article states that the code is licensed under a 3-clause BSD license. The 3-clause BSD license permits redistribution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
- jxf 13y ago
  That's pretty much what I just said. "In this case it's okay as long as you reproduce the license in any redistributions (e.g. hosting it on GitHub)."
  - LukeShu 13y ago
    So how is that "not what 'open source' means"?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Danieru 13y ago
There appears to be a common confusion that Open Source means "source you can see". Instead Open Source is a made-up word which was created to avoid the confusion associated with Free Software, as in the Free Software Foundation. That is to say: an "open source" license which does not let you redistribute is not an Open Source license at all. Even Microsoft has not tried to mis-use the term instead using "Share Source" for their, thing.