Well, I never dived deep into licensing thingies, even tho I am a big fan of FOSS stuff. In my mind Open Source was just a code that is just accessible to view by anyone, while Free and Open Source Software is the truly free code. Now I learned that they are generally the same or even exactly the same. But then how do we call a software that have license like diffgram or giving similar restrictions, while keeping the code open to view?
>> Now I learned that they are generally the same or even exactly the same. There are still some differences. All "free" code is Open Source, but not all Open Source code is "free" (As per FSF thinking). Basically, free code can ensure additional freedoms. >> But then how do we call a software that have license like diffgram or giving similar restrictions, while keeping the code open to view? "Source Available" is somewhat common. "Fair Code" is also used: faircode.io/
According to the Open Source Initiative, open source is a legal term of art. This is a legal opinion that the phrase "open source" means one and ONLY ONE thing in courts, contracts, and laws. One of the OSI's reasons for existing is to promote their Open Source Definition as the sole legal definition of open source. Does that mean you could be sued for false advertising if you advertise as open source but your software license doesn't meet that definition? Maybe, but in court systems where precedent matters, open source as a term of art hasn't really been tested
@@anthonyronda >> Does that mean you could be sued for false advertising if you advertise as open source but your software license doesn't meet that definition? I don't think so, since I don't believe the OSI has managed to gain legal ownership of "Open Source" in any way. Note the terms "legal term of art" and "legal opinion" in your message. I don't think they specifically own the term, but their efforts have pushed & popularised a specific definition. I think whether or not that would be a good thing is a whole other conversation. Could be dangerous to have a company (OSI) with that much power over the term.
Well, I never dived deep into licensing thingies, even tho I am a big fan of FOSS stuff. In my mind Open Source was just a code that is just accessible to view by anyone, while Free and Open Source Software is the truly free code. Now I learned that they are generally the same or even exactly the same. But then how do we call a software that have license like diffgram or giving similar restrictions, while keeping the code open to view?
>> Now I learned that they are generally the same or even exactly the same.
There are still some differences. All "free" code is Open Source, but not all Open Source code is "free" (As per FSF thinking). Basically, free code can ensure additional freedoms.
>> But then how do we call a software that have license like diffgram or giving similar restrictions, while keeping the code open to view?
"Source Available" is somewhat common. "Fair Code" is also used: faircode.io/
According to the Open Source Initiative, open source is a legal term of art. This is a legal opinion that the phrase "open source" means one and ONLY ONE thing in courts, contracts, and laws. One of the OSI's reasons for existing is to promote their Open Source Definition as the sole legal definition of open source. Does that mean you could be sued for false advertising if you advertise as open source but your software license doesn't meet that definition? Maybe, but in court systems where precedent matters, open source as a term of art hasn't really been tested
@@anthonyronda
>> Does that mean you could be sued for false advertising if you advertise as open source but your software license doesn't meet that definition?
I don't think so, since I don't believe the OSI has managed to gain legal ownership of "Open Source" in any way.
Note the terms "legal term of art" and "legal opinion" in your message. I don't think they specifically own the term, but their efforts have pushed & popularised a specific definition.
I think whether or not that would be a good thing is a whole other conversation. Could be dangerous to have a company (OSI) with that much power over the term.