[b4ux1t3]

Open source does not mean you are free to distribute the code, necessarily. It literally just means that the code is available for inspection. Paid-for open source software isn't a new thing.

You're thinking of _free_ open source software. While I'm not a huge FOSS-head, there is a distinct difference between "_free_ and open source" and just "open source". It's all in the licensing.

I could, in theory, write a license that says, basically, you can't distribute my source code, but you can look at it, compile it, and even alter it to fit your needs. In fact, a lot of licenses on older software projects allowed for exactly that.

I could also release a license that says that you can only redistribute my code if you haven't purchased it, but if you have purchased it, you're not allowed to redistribute it. Pointless? Yeah, probably. But that's still a valid license.

Anything goes, as long as you can come up with the proper legalese to put in the license.

EDIT: I get it, some people support OSI's definitions, some FSF's, and apparently sharing the opinion of one has angered the supporters of the other. A lot of this is subjective, and I know that. I'd appreciate it if you discussed and voted accordingly.

[geocar]

> Open source does not mean you are free to distribute the code, necessarily

The Open Source Definition[1] has defined the term "open source" since the late 1990s to mean exactly this.

The term "Open" refers to open-membership (for contributions), and not transparency.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition

> I could, in theory, write a license that says, basically, you can't distribute my source code, but you can look at it, compile it, and even alter it to fit your needs.

You can, but this doesn't meet the Open Source Definition, so you might be infringing on their trademark if you were to call that an Open Source License.

[pgeorgi]

> While I'm not a huge FOSS-head, there is a distinct difference between "_free_ and open source" and just "open source". It's all in the licensing

"Free Software" and "Open Source" mean pretty much the same as far as the practices, motions and licenses are concerned (but people insist there are huge differences in terms of philosophy). "Free and Open Source Software" is just a new-ish term that includes either team to stop the whining.

"Open Source" was a mostly unused term in the software licensing field before 1998 or the people at OSI who drafted the Open Source Definition likely would have gone for something else.

"Shared source" was introduced by Microsoft a couple years later and is a pretty descriptive term for those less liberal licenses (where sharing code happens outside the criteria of the OSD).

Why not just go with that instead of arguing why people should use a term to mean something different? There was an effort to do just that, by Microsoft, to muddy the waters, before they settled on "shared source", which might be why you get those harsh responses.

[asfdsfggtfd]

This post is almost completely wrong.

You can indeed do what you like in the license (within the bounds of the law) but if it doesn't meet the OSI definition it is not Open Source.

[matz1]

No, when hear the term open source the first thing that come in mind is that the source is readable, thats it nothing else is implied. That being said, oher entities/organization might have their own definition. I'm sure there are many people who use the term open source like mine.

[asfdsfggtfd]

Lots of people get technical language wrong much the time. This is fine. Normally one does not correct heavily because one is polite. When one hears someone starting to spread the mistake one feels a duty to correct to prevent further misinformation. This is tedious but still fine.

What is not fine is when the person using the technical language wrong starts explaining that their ignorance is better than other peoples' knowledge.

[matz1]

Right or wrong is relative, I agree if you believe its wrong then it should be your duty to correct it, and so does the other people you deemed wrong.

For me its not ignorance, I am aware of both definition, I just prefer one better than other.

[asfdsfggtfd]

No it's not ignorance its willful ignorance. There is the actual definition. And then there is your personal definition.

This is like saying that personally you use the definition of kilogram to be 3.5 measures of flour using one of your cups. You would struggle when using other people's recipes and other people would struggle when using yours....

Software licensing is complex enough already. Why not keep it all simpler and use words as they are defined and understood by the lawyers who are the ones who actually have to deal with this side of things? Then us programmers can just write the software.

[matz1]

Who decide that the OSI definition is the actual definition ? Unlike your kilogram example, there are actually plenty of people that use/prefer the simpler definition, sure there will some struggle but that is expected.

That's why they should not use such simple and common words to define complex software licensing.

[factorialboy]

When I first hear the term bananas the first thing that comes to my mind is apples. :-)

[matz1]

I'm not sure many people use the term like that.

[b4ux1t3]

You're not alone. I'm of the mind that it doesn't matter what the license, state of the source, or whatever, I'm here to get things done, not quibble over trivialities and semantics. When I can see the source for something, I call it open source. If the OSI has a problem with that, I invite them to explain to me how my definition affects their goals in any way, shape, or form.

I like the OSI. I use a lot of stuff that they endorse. My 3D printer is OSI certified (or whatever the proper terminology is). But I use my printer to solve problems, and it being open or closed source doesn't really matter, so long as it helps me solve problems.

I like the FSF. I use a lot of stuff that they endorse. One of the operating systems I use is FSF certified (or whatever the proper terminology is). But I use this operating system to solve problems, and it being open or closed source doesn't really matter, as long as it helps me solve problems.

I like Microsoft. I use a lot of stuff that they make. One of the operating systems I use. . .you get the idea.

[asfdsfggtfd]

> not quibble over trivialities and semantics

I recommend just using the definitions of things correctly then :) much easier that trying to persuade other people that the definition does not exist.

When cooking I use the kilogram as defined by the SI system - I don't use some other random mass that I call a kilogram.

Similarly with software legalities. I also just use the standard terminology so other people e.g. my company's legal department gets the correct inference of what I am talking about. If you use it to mean something else you will confuse them.

[matz1]

Correct or not is relative, its a matter of which definition you subscribe to. Using the term Open source as source is available is not just random. Apparently many people including developer use it that way. I think its fault of OSI to use such common words to define something so specific.

[asfdsfggtfd]

I don't understand. Once someone knows that they are using these words wrong. Why would they not only persist but insist that everyone else is wrong? Is this just due to embarrassment or something else?

[CrystalGamma]

If you can look at, but not redistribute, freely, it is called 'shared source'. Open Source really is about free redistribution. And the difference to Free Software is mostly about the stance on community and lock-in.

[bfred_it]

"Open source" is very generic, it literally just means "Not closed/private source." Nothing else about redistribution and restrictions is implied. For that there are specific licenses, which the article didn't mention.

[Vendan]

It's not open source unless it's an open source license, and it's not an open source license unless it meets https://opensource.org/osd-annotated. You are referring to "source available". Please stop conflating the two.

[b4ux1t3]

Can you blame us? This is largely a subjective matter, and the different organizations who talk about this kind of thing have often-conflicting ideologies about how all this works.

When I hear "open source", I don't know which camp the speaker is sitting in. It's perfectly reasonable to get mixed up sometimes.

[cat199]

While it is a subjective matter when looking from the outside, the OSI consortium did a pretty good job of bringing in all of the various groups conventionally referred to as 'open source' and getting the various definitions pinned down in a way that seems to accurately reflect the broad spectrum of possibilities, even to the point that non-open-source companies use their definitions.

While I agree one can still certainly debate the legitimacy of this situation if one so desires, it's pretty much consensus 'within the literature' that the OSI definitions 'are correct' at this pont..

[asfdsfggtfd]

> This is largely a subjective matter,

It just isn't subjective. "Open Source" is a technical term with a clear well understood meaning.

[b4ux1t3]

It is a technical term defined by a bunch of people who got together and agreed that their opinions (however educated they may be) are more correct than other people's. That's extremely subjective, and not universally accepted.

Technical terms have definitions that transcend the opinions of people who use them. When I say "byte", everyone knows exactly what I mean, as it's a unit of measurement. When I say "agile", it could mean any number of different things, depending on context. When people say "open source", the thought that comes to a lot of people's minds is simply "I can see the _source_ code, because it's out in the _open_."

It's subjective, and, frankly, annoying. It shouldn't matter how something is licensed, because the most important aspect of software is whether or not it provides value and helps me do my job. Bickering about semantics doesn't get work done.

[b4ux1t3]

I'm just going off of what I hear vocal "FOSS" advocates screaming at me on online forums. They tell anyone and everyone, loudly, that licenses are terrible, but at least some are decent, and that if I can't do what I want, it's not free software, even if it's open source.

Turns out opensource.org disagrees with them. But it doesn't seem like FSF (or rather, RMS, and the FSF by proxy) agrees[1].

In the end, I don't really have a horse in this race. I just write code. I don't care how my company's legal department chooses to protect it.

Frankly, I find it kind of tiresome that there's such a big argument over this stuff.

[1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

[mikegerwitz]

Here's an illustration:

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-open-overlap.en.html

I manually went through each of the OSI licenses and compared them to the FSF's list a while back, and there were only a couple differences. I don't have time to dig them up right now, but they're largely the same.

We reject the term "open source" not because of the licensing, but because of the philosophy: it was created to explicitly ignore the ethical concerns (users' freedoms) and focus instead on a development methodology.