[mepian]

"Source-available" is already the established term for this kind of software, not sure what you are talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software

[Narishma]

Does that term really apply to this? You can modify and distribute the source. The only thing you can't do is sell it.

[Pet_Ant]

Yes, because the OSI doesn’t recognize it as such.

[gfosco]

I don't recognize the OSI as any authority to define words.

[hgs3]

The OSI once applied to the USPTO for a trademark on "open source" and was denied [1].

[1] https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...

[jraph]

This is fine, but you don't get to decide what people mean when they say "open source", and usually they mean this definition.

[mannerheim]

> Open-source software (OSS) is computer software that is released under a license in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software and its source code to anyone and for any purpose.[1][2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software

[rendaw]

"Free and open source (FOSS)" is another established term, for the opposite, so I'm not sure this proves anything.

[jraph]

It's not the opposite. Source-available is a requirement of FLOSS (or FOSS).

FOSS is "source-available" + other guarantees.