3 ms·
> "open source" is mostly a common language phrase not a term of legal art The term "open source" does have an official definition[0]. It doesn't mean what mos
by malisper 12y ago
> "open source" is mostly a common language phrase not a term of legal art
The term "open source" does have an official definition[0]. It doesn't mean what most people think it does and that is one of the reasons Richard Stallman has criticized it[1].
[0] http://opensource.org/docs/osd http://opensource.org/docs/osd
[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
- brudgers 12y agoIt's a certification of particular licenses. It's not a legal standard. That's why public domain is a grey area for OSI: http://opensource.org/faq#public-domain http://opensource.org/faq#public-domain and the failure to certify Creative Commons Zero. Carving public domain source code out of the definition of "Open Source" is the sort of thing trade bodies do. But it's something that one can argue before a judge. The copyright status and license are all that matters.