3 ms·

It is open source, alright. You mean that it's not free in the FSF's definition of the term and that it indeed is.

jordigh 12y ago
Please read my link. It is not open source in the sense of OSI's definition, who were the first ones to ever define open source. Furthermore, they trademark the term "open source", and they have even asked that you do not call truecrypt open source: it is not all appropriate for [TrueCrypt] to describe itself as "open source." This use of the term "open source" to describe something under a license that's not only unapproved by OSI but known to be subject to issues is unacceptable. (from http://www.infoworld.com/d/open-source-software/truecrypt-or-false-would-be-open-source-project-must-clean-its-act-230862 http://www.infoworld.com/d/open-source-software/truecrypt-or... )
- huhtenberg 12y ago
  Will all due respect to OSI and its trademarks, a software with the source code that is open to the public is quite naturally described as "open source". Just by a simply virtue of dictionary definition of two words involved. I'm all for pedantry, but it's quite misplaced here.
  - jordigh 12y ago
    No. Please read my link. It is not naturally described as such, because nobody described it naturally as such before OSI came along. The dictionary definitions in this case lead you to the wrong conclusion about the meaning, just like at least one dictionary definition of "free" can lead to the wrong conclusion about what free software means. I am being pedantic about this because I want people to value the principles that open source is supposed to be about. I don't want people to forget what open source really means.
    - huhtenberg 12y ago
      It is pedantry of the same kind as RMS insisting on using GNU/Linux name instead of Linux. I have several projects under GPL and MIT licenses, some are over 10 years old, and I still think it's perfectly fine to describe something with publicly available code as "open source". Whether it is released under an open source license is another matter, and in many cases it's not, including TC and most of what Microsoft releases. But in conversational English TC is open source, because there's basically no other established term to describe the fact that its source is available. If you are aware of one, I'd like to know it.
      - jordigh 12y ago
        Stallman and his toe cheese have nothing to do with this. I think the term "visible source" is quite unambiguous, but perhaps I'm wrong. Microsoft prefers the term "shared source" for what you describe.

Please read my link. It is not open source in the sense of OSI's definition, who were the first ones to ever define open source. Furthermore, they trademark the term "open source", and they have even asked that you do not call truecrypt open source: it is not all appropriate for [TrueCrypt] to describe itself as "open source." This use of the term "open source" to describe something under a license that's not only unapproved by OSI but known to be subject to issues is unacceptable. (from http://www.infoworld.com/d/open-source-software/truecrypt-or-false-would-be-open-source-project-must-clean-its-act-230862 http://www.infoworld.com/d/open-source-software/truecrypt-or... )

huhtenberg 12y ago
Will all due respect to OSI and its trademarks, a software with the source code that is open to the public is quite naturally described as "open source". Just by a simply virtue of dictionary definition of two words involved. I'm all for pedantry, but it's quite misplaced here.
- jordigh 12y ago
  No. Please read my link. It is not naturally described as such, because nobody described it naturally as such before OSI came along. The dictionary definitions in this case lead you to the wrong conclusion about the meaning, just like at least one dictionary definition of "free" can lead to the wrong conclusion about what free software means. I am being pedantic about this because I want people to value the principles that open source is supposed to be about. I don't want people to forget what open source really means.
  - huhtenberg 12y ago
    It is pedantry of the same kind as RMS insisting on using GNU/Linux name instead of Linux. I have several projects under GPL and MIT licenses, some are over 10 years old, and I still think it's perfectly fine to describe something with publicly available code as "open source". Whether it is released under an open source license is another matter, and in many cases it's not, including TC and most of what Microsoft releases. But in conversational English TC is open source, because there's basically no other established term to describe the fact that its source is available. If you are aware of one, I'd like to know it.
    - jordigh 12y ago
      Stallman and his toe cheese have nothing to do with this. I think the term "visible source" is quite unambiguous, but perhaps I'm wrong. Microsoft prefers the term "shared source" for what you describe.