|
|
|
|
|
|
by amelius
1501 days ago
|
|
|
Depends on what you call open source. In my view, it's open source if the source code is open for viewing by anyone. That doesn't say anything about the cost of using the code in a commercial situation. Anyway, you could start a new movement and call it "fair source", where programmers are properly compensated for code used by large companies who make millions using it. |
|
|
That would be _source-available_. Open source is well understood to also enable modification and redistribution - see Wikipedia's[0] or Merriam-Webster's[1] entry on open source.
Also, open source says nothing about using the code in a commercial situation to begin with. The most popular open source licenses (MIT, Apache, GPL, ...) don't distinguish commercial and noncommercial usage.
I agree that the situation with large companies is not easy. Either you pick a stricter license like GPL, and risk your software being left unpopular, or pick one that enables popularity more, like MIT, but then risk being taken advantage of by the lack of restrictions. I think it's a tough call.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open-source