3 ms·
> Basically if you allowed people to see your source code it was considered open source. This (premise of your entire post) is very much incorrect. OSI has ne
by the_why_of_y 12y ago
> Basically if you allowed people to see your source code it was considered open source.
This (premise of your entire post) is very much incorrect.
OSI has never certified the notorious MSFT "Shared Source" licenses that you are probably referring to.
Please read the Wikipedia article on the subject, you will find that the licenses that are certified by OSI are the same licenses that the FSF calls "free software", and the licenses that OSI didn't certify are "non-free" according to the FSF.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_source
The OSI "Open Source Definition" criteria are based on the "Debian Free Sofware Guidelines", which are in turn inspired by the FSF's "Free Software Definition".
http://opensource.org/osd http://opensource.org/osd
In practice all 3 of these organizations tend to come to the same verdict, with very few exceptions in fringe cases (such as the GFDL).