Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> open source, means the source code is available, in my opinion.

Hard disagree because I have been in the open source arena for two decades and I have never seen any notable project using "open source" to mean "source code is available". A software whose source code is available is just "source available" but "open", "free", "libre" mean much more than just source code available. I am not making this up! Just look at the license terms of any open source project of repute.

"Source available" is not enough for me to use a software. If a software license forbids any field of endeavour (including but not limited to commercial activity), it is no longer "open" to me anymore. Sure the source is available but it is not open, it is not free, it is not libre because it discriminates against a field of endeavour.

When I make something open source I really mean "open" and any individual or organization should be able to use my software without any discrimination while agreeing to the terms and conditions set out in the license.

If I really want to forbid commercial activity, then I will choose a "noncommercial" (and thus non-open, non-free, non-libre) license.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: