|
|
|
|
|
by robocat
2077 days ago
|
|
> Public Domain source code is not considered "Open Source" in terms of OSI licensing https://opensource.org/node/878 The reasons look to more nuanced than that article (especially for government work) but the crux AFAIK is that public source is not a license, so there is no license that the OSI can approve. From https://opensource.org/faq#public-domain
: There are certain circumstances, such as with U.S. government works as described above, where it is not easy to apply a license, and the software must be released into the public domain. In these cases, while it would be inaccurate to display the OSI logo or say that the license is OSI-approved (since there is no license), nevertheless we think it is accurate to say that such software is effectively open source, or open source for most practical purposes, even though it is not officially released under an open source license. (This is assuming, of course, that in the laws of releasing jurisdiction the meaning of "public domain" is compatible with the Open Source Definition.) After all, the freedoms guaranteed by open source licenses are still present, and it is possible for the familiar dynamics of open source collaboration to arise around the software.” The next FAQ heading explains that the CC0 license was not OSI approved due to its patent clause. Public source does have its issues with some jurisdictions, but surely jurisdiction problems are no worse than the specific problems each other license has. |
|