[ocdtrekkie]

Because then it wouldn't be open source. The open source definition prohibits developers from placing a lot of arbitrary license restrictions. One of the examples of this is that Gab, an alt-right site, now uses Mastodon, a platform written and used largely by a pretty far-left community.

[colinmhayes]

We can get into semantics on what open source means, but I don't think the definition has to include a prohibition on any licenses. Open source just means the source code is freely available.

[igneo676]

Except, we do have a rigorous definition on what Open Source really means. The best place to check is the OSI's definition[0] and the licenses they approve[1]. What you're describing is commonly described as Source Available and doesn't readily meet the definition of Open Source.

Our terms matter. And considering this conversation is really about what it means to be OSS and what the tradeoffs are, we need to "get into semantics on what open source means". Too many people co-opt the term and we need to defend it.

[0]: https://opensource.org/osd-annotated

[1]: https://opensource.org/licenses

[colinmhayes]

I reject the OSI's claim to have authority over what "open source" means. We do not have a rigorous definition of what open source means beyond the source code is freely available.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

> I reject the OSI's claim to have authority over what "open source" means. We do not have a rigorous definition of what open source means beyond the source code is freely available.

I'm genuinely sympathetic, in that it rubs me a little bit the wrong way to say that one organization can define "open source". In practice, however, the only people I've ever seen actually arguing this are people trying to pretend that their license is open source when it really isn't.

[igneo676]

That's fine if you reject the OSI's definition. We've been having this conversation as a community for decades and "the source code is freely available" is not enough.

For instance, there's Debian's[0] (which was considered authoritative enough that the OSI basically used it as their own) which spells out the freedoms necessary for software to be considered Open Source. This extends beyond the source being available to not discriminating against people groups, allowing for modification, etc.

There's another from the FSF/GNU projects[1] which lay out the Four Essential Freedoms. These extend beyond source availability to the ability to run the program as you wish, to study the program and to redistribute it (among others).

To say source availability == Open Source is to rewrite history. It's about user freedom and always has been.

[0]: https://www.debian.org/social_contract

[1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

[cxr]

You can say you reject it, but you're not entitled to your own set of facts.

[colinmhayes]

Ok well here are the facts. Open means freely and widely available. Source means source code. Open source means the programs code is freely and widely available. If you want to add other stuff onto that you need to find a new phrase.

[cxr]

You're equivocating.

Grey is a color somewhere between white and black. Water is the liquid that we drink, wash our dishes and cars with, the stuff that sits in the world's oceans, &c. "Grey water", however, is not supposed to be applied to anything that contains fecal matter, whether or not you can argue that it is both grey and water. There are such things as specialization and context. They're pretty important to the way language works.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

The source code for NT has been widely leaked over the years. Is it Open Source?