|
|
|
|
|
|
by theyinwhy
2858 days ago
|
|
|
Of course, if you follow the osi definition you are absolutely correct. [1] "the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software”—and the one most people seem to think it means—is “You can look at the source code.”" [2] The main problem imho lies in the fact that afaik we still don't know how to call proprietary software with released source code, although this is mighty common (again, see github). If that problem is solved, the osi definition is much better applicable. (On a side note: A word that might describe such software is public. Public Software vs. Open Software Software. This however is again problematic because of "public-domain" software.) [1] https://opensource.org/osd [2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... |
|
|
I disagree. I think if you ask nearly people who know what the term "source code" means, if you ask them what "open source" means, they'll give the OSI definition (which is in practice the same as the FSF's 'free software' definition). They'll say it's more than "I can look at the source", but includes the rights to share and build on it.
Microsoft tried the term "Shared Source", which might be what you mean.