[dkdcio]

that would be “source available” software, and it’s not a random initiative

there is disagreement on exactly what “open source” means, but generally clear boundaries between open source and source available software in licensing and spirit of the given project. e.g. MIT and Apache 2.0 are open source, BSL is source available.

edit: PERSONALLY, I think if you don’t welcome outside contributions, it isn’t open source; see others’ responses for disagreement on this (it’s not a part of the standard definition)

[bigstrat2003]

> if you don’t welcome outside contributions, it isn’t open source

That isn't true. Open source refers to the ability to make use of the source code if you wish, not the ability to send pull requests. SQLite is open source (public domain even!), but does not accept contributions from outside.

[morpheuskafka]

Indeed, and it can also be free software and under a copyleft license (GPL AGPL etc) and not accept contributions. Otherwise, every project that shut down or was just a one off gist/blog post to begin with couldn't be called open source either!

[dkdcio]

argh I will re-edit my comment…sorta covered by the “disagreement” bit, and I disagree on this point (it’s not open to me if you don’t openly accept contributions), but you are right

[evanelias]

> it’s not a random initiative

Arguably it is, in the sense that they didn't actually invent the term; there are many documented pre-OSI uses (including by high-profile folks like Bill Joy) saying "open source" to just mean "source available". And OSI's attempt to trademark the term was rejected.

> if you don’t welcome outside contributions, it isn’t open source

That isn't even part of the OSI's definition, so what are you basing this on?

[dkdcio]

> That isn't even part of the OSI's definition, so what are you basing this on?

edited my comment —- that is my personal belief/definition

I did mention there’s disagreement —- I haven’t read up on the history and whatnot myself in a while. will have to do some re-reading :)

[pessimizer]

> PERSONALLY, I think if you don’t welcome outside contributions, it isn’t open source

It's not a question of belief. Maybe words don't mean anything anymore, but certainly legal contracts and licenses do. "Open Source" is a class of licenses approved by the OSI. There are no spirits involved.

[dkdcio]

meh…I consider an open source license distinct from an open source project. obviously legal contracts can define their own static terms; language is dynamic

[on_the_train]

Open source means the source is open, ie downloadable. It's not that complicated, that can't just be made up to mean something else

[dkdcio]

it’s not made up (well all language is made up but I digress), you’re just being flagrantly ignorant of the terms you’re using and their history. you can easily go read up on open source vs source available and the history of the terms/licenses

it’s also fine by me if you want to have your own definition; see other comments, I don’t personally 100% agree with OSI’s definition myself

[kstrauser]

One can find leaked Windows source code on the Internet. Is it open source?