[levodelellis]

It's not open source when you disallow people and companies from using it. One big difference between open source and public domain is that code in the public domain doesn't force anyone to redistribute the changes.

I have had several projects where I didn't want to be forked, especially by a company with a marketing budget. I choose not to distribute it with an open source license. There's nothing wrong with that. Companies have sold copies of source to people who paid, so that's an option. But I don't know of any licenses like that which have been written for the public to use (copying a company license is a copyright violation)

[Gud]

There are many open source licenses that don’t force redistribution of the code.

[levodelellis]

Correct, I'm saying public domain never requires that which is different from open source licenses, which may require it (and other stipulations)