Hacker Read

vortico · 2019-02-02 23:51:16

That's called "source available", not "open source". At least according to the OSI. https://opensource.org/osd

MarkSweep | karma 2205 | avg karma 3.46 · | 2023-05-24 08:48:33

This is called “source available”,l and is not the same thing as “open source”.

edward | karma 45530 | avg karma 8.13 · | 2015-11-28 06:45:54

You are wrong. Read the Open Source Definition:

eurleif | karma 2988 | avg karma 2.83 · | 2013-04-05 23:38:25+00:00

Where do you see that in the open source definition (http://opensource.org/osd)?

vetinari | karma 8298 | avg karma 1.82 · | 2015-03-02 17:54:54+00:00

No, it's not Open Source either: http://opensource.org/osd

dec0dedab0de | karma 7735 | avg karma 3.27 · | 2013-10-01 16:34:40

I don't think that would actually count as open source, at least according to http://opensource.org/osd

eminent101 | karma 82 | avg karma 2.1 · | 2022-07-02 10:04:25

Open Source is already defined here: https://opensource.org/osd

jefftk | karma 22506 | avg karma 4.92 · | 2021-07-04 02:03:01

> open source and free for non-commercial use only

bakugo | karma 1516 | avg karma 2.59 · | 2023-09-07 01:44:15

Source Available is not necessarily Open Source.

slig | karma 8530 | avg karma 4.02 · | 2016-09-01 14:28:21+00:00

Just because you can host and possibly read the code, it doesn't mean that it has to be open-source. [1]

chei0aiV | karma 1664 | avg karma 3.2 · | 2015-11-29 09:43:01+00:00

That doesn't sound like the open source that I know.

SEJeff | karma 10983 | avg karma 3.25 · | 2019-08-09 14:41:10+00:00

Source available is not open source. Per the open source definition:

It is cool that they're source available, but that's still not the same. Putting a disclaimer that you work for gitlab would also be appreciated.

davidw | karma 63893 | avg karma 3.82 · | 2014-08-25 13:12:22

> available for viewing and editing.

That's not what open source is about: http://opensource.org/osd-annotated

ahlst | karma 2 | avg karma 2.0 · | 2013-07-12 11:20:46

See the open source definition (http://opensource.org/osd), especially the third point.

icebraining | karma 48925 | avg karma 2.14 · | 2012-01-28 17:57:26

Parent is using the OSI's definition of open source.

gojomo | karma 29822 | avg karma 3.73 · | 2014-02-27 03:13:18+00:00

'source available to compile' ? 'open source'

josephcsible | karma 22500 | avg karma 3.06 · | 2022-11-23 23:30:05

It's not free software or open source. Check the Open Source Definition: https://opensource.org/osd

vezzy-fnord | karma 16839 | avg karma 4.76 · | 2015-03-08 16:21:00+00:00

That's not enough to be open source: http://opensource.org/osd-annotated

jbellis | karma 4390 | avg karma 4.86 · | 2009-12-23 19:56:53

"open source" has a specific meaning, not just "you can read the source:" http://www.opensource.org/

koonsolo | karma 8116 | avg karma 2.86 · | 2018-10-30 14:59:22+00:00

We need a different name for this, so either

So that it's clear that source code is available in some form, but it's not open source.