Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by chongli 182 days ago
No, it’s source available but not open source. Open source requires at minimum the license to distribute modified copies. Popular open source licenses such as MIT [1] take this further:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

This makes the license transitive so that derived works are also MIT licensed.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License?wprov=sfti1#Licens...
3 comments
sigseg1v 182 days ago
Not quite. You need to include the MIT license text when distributing the software*, but the software you build doesn't need to also be MIT.

*: which unfortunately most users of MIT libraries do not follow as I often have an extremely difficult time finding the OSS licenses in their software distributions

link
aeon_ai 182 days ago
MIT is not copyleft. The copyright notice must be included for those incorporated elements, but other downstream code it remains part of can be licensed however it wants.

AGPL and GPL are, on the other hand, as you describe.

link
chongli 182 days ago
Modifications can be licensed differently but that takes extra work. If I release a project with the MIT license at the top of each file and you download my project and make a 1-line change which you then redistribute, you need to explicitly mark that line as having a different license from the rest of the file otherwise it could be interpreted as also being MIT licensed.

You also could not legally remove the MIT license from those files and distribute with all rights reserved. My original granting of permission to modify and redistribute continues downstream.

link
phendrenad2 181 days ago
No, the original definition of open-source is source code that is visible (open) to the public.
link
jibal 181 days ago
Citation?

On the contrary: https://opensource.org/osd

link
jibal 179 days ago
> I mean, I can buy opensource.co.net but that doesn't mean I can tell you how you can use the term.

> Need more of a citation to understand that..?

This nonsense is not at all relevant to the claim for which I asked for a citation: "No, the original definition of open-source is source code that is visible (open) to the public."

No support for that claim has ever been offered.

link
phendrenad2 181 days ago
I mean, I can buy opensource.co.net but that doesn't mean I can tell you how you can use the term.

Need more of a citation to understand that..?

link