• thisfro@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    That is one definition of open source

    I agree that it is great to meet all these criteria, but especially restricting commercial use is a pretty reasonable thing to do

    • JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I would say that Open Source, by any definition of the word, does have the assumption that you are allowed to modify and publish what you create at least in some form or another, even if it would be under a non-commercial clause or a license with other requirements.

      When the licence explicitly says all you are allowed to do is access the code “solely for the purposes of review, compilation and non-commercial distribution”, that’s not open source.

      • thisfro@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        When the licence explicitly says all you are allowed to do is access the code “solely for the purposes of review, compilation and non-commercial distribution”, that’s not open source.

        I’d say that is open source. But not free and open source

    • Two@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      OSI’s definition is the oldest and original definition. It’s decades old at this point.

      It’s source available, nothing more.