Open source is not a license. Open source literally just means that the source is openly available. It does not include the right for you to reuse or change any of the source.
That’s why most of the time, people are talking about “Free Open Source Software” (FOSS) when they think of openly licensed source code.
That’s why you can publish your project on e.g. Github (= open source) but if you don’t add a license statement, your work is still protected by an “all rights reserved copyright”. (= not free)
Anyhow, I would not necessarily deem a project OSS, just because the used language is readable by default. To me, OSS needs at least the developers intention to make it openly available.
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.
Well put me in a dress and call me Sheryl. Never knew that the “accepted definitions” were really that close. Thanks!
I knew that some definitions of OSS were really basic (as in “as long as there is source at some point”) but I didn’t know that the OSI definition was so close to the idea of “free software”.
While I agree with you , the Open Software Initiative doesn’t :
Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code.
So according to the OSI’s definition of open source , a project being public on github , but with out a license or with a license which does not comply with the requirements set out by the OSI
It’s a reader assistance, some paid for tool that highlights parts of a word, can’t recall what it’s called…
Bionic Reader
The Cooler Bionic Reader
I use a Firefox thing which has additional features and is free
It’s also not necessarily paid for, Jiffy Reader is a free browser addon
This reminded me that I wanted to look into open source alternatives to Bionic Reader…
All extensions are technically open source because they “compile” to JavaScript. Most, including the one I use, don’t bother obfuscating
Open source is a license. What you’re referring to is “source-available.” You can’t legally fork, redistribute, or contribute to it.
I think you got that one wrong.
Open source is not a license. Open source literally just means that the source is openly available. It does not include the right for you to reuse or change any of the source.
That’s why most of the time, people are talking about “Free Open Source Software” (FOSS) when they think of openly licensed source code.
That’s why you can publish your project on e.g. Github (= open source) but if you don’t add a license statement, your work is still protected by an “all rights reserved copyright”. (= not free)
Anyhow, I would not necessarily deem a project OSS, just because the used language is readable by default. To me, OSS needs at least the developers intention to make it openly available.
Well put me in a dress and call me Sheryl. Never knew that the “accepted definitions” were really that close. Thanks!
I knew that some definitions of OSS were really basic (as in “as long as there is source at some point”) but I didn’t know that the OSI definition was so close to the idea of “free software”.
I found the read about the history and similarities & differences quite interesting: https://web.archive.org/web/20180915200609/http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
That’s a colorful expression if I’ve ever seen one
While I agree with you , the Open Software Initiative doesn’t :
So according to the OSI’s definition of open source , a project being public on github , but with out a license or with a license which does not comply with the requirements set out by the OSI