[nerdile]

That's fine. It's just not open source. Don't call it open source if it's not.

Definition: https://opensource.org/osd

[SomeoneOnTheWeb]

Not everyone agrees with this definition. If the source is open to read, for me it's open source. The website you linked is an opinionated view on what open source is.

[__jonas]

> If the source is open to read, for me it's open source

Not everyone agrees with the OSI definition but I'd say almost noone agrees with that definition there.

I think most people understand what you are describing as "Source Available". Could even be a commercial project.

[shevis]

> If the source is open to read, for me it's open source.

That’s called “source available”. Open source colloquially implies open license.

[captainepoch]

It's not. Open Source has its own definition.

You can define however you want, but it's not Open Source. What you mean is "source available".

[rvense]

I mean, there's not a lot we can do to stop you using the phrase in this way. But you should know that you will cause confusion. The phrase "open source" is, to an awful lot of people, a technical term with a specific meaning and has been so for decades now.

[palata]

I think you misunderstand the debates happening around open source. They exist, but not for what you mean.

[Llamanator3830]

This reminds me of the discussion of whether if open source AI models are open source or not, when the training data is not available to the public.

[megous]

I mean this lists MIT license as opensource license, when it's clearly not, because it doesn't at all mention source code. The license just talks about "software".

Anyone is free to publish only binaries+docs under this license, if they wish.

So the website is not very accurate.

[38]

that definition is wrong, really by just common sense

[fsflover]

This is a shallow dismissal, which is against the HN Guidlines.

[themaninthedark]

>Free and open-source software (FOSS) or free/libre and open-source software (FLOSS) is openly shared source code that is licensed without any restrictions on usage, modification, or distribution. Confusion persists about this definition because the "free", also known as "libre", refers to the freedom of the product, not the price, expense, cost, or charge. For example, "being free to speak" is not the same as "free beer".

I generally think of open source as where I can see the code and freely modify it, not necessarily freely commercialize it on my own.

[pbhjpbhj]

I think I'm about where you are in all this, I see NC (restrictions that activities are non-commercial; like CC-NC) as being 'open source'.

Sure, I can't take your work, cut you off, then sell that work as if it were my own... but without explicit encouragement to do that (*), honour should inhibit that.

(* I'm aware some licenses give explicit encouragement to commercially exploit -- I just don't think that is the boundary for open source)

[woodrowbarlow]

the FSF/OSI are big on emphasizing that "free/open" means more than exposing the designs and mechanisms; it means guaranteeing certain freedoms and rights to the users of your software.

what you're describing is usually called "source-available".