> The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, [..]
The OSI (a consortium of cloud companies who benefit when you write nonfree software for them) is not actually an authority on what the words "open source" mean, no matter how hard they try to insert themselves into that role.
Models can't be open source anyway, because they don't have source.
While most people follow the OSD criteria, there is nothing that says open source software must follow it. Nor is the OSD the only set of criteria or the only definition.
Open source means the source is available. Anything else is just political.
Apparently licenses no longer have to actually meet all 10 of the criteria listed there to count as open source. OSI says AGPLv3 is open source, for example, even though it fails #10 ("No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface").
AGPLv3 has provisions that are predicated on remote interaction over computer networks. Put modified AGPLv3 software on a computer that users interact with over RS232 terminals and you don't have to give users the source. Replace those RS232 terminals with X servers that let the users interact with the program over Ethernet and you do have to give those users the source.
That's source-available: you get to see the code and learn from it, but if you're not allowed to use it however you want (with as only common restrictions that you must then credit the creator(s) and also allow others the same freedom on derivative works) then it's not the traditional definition of open source
tremon|2 months ago
> The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, [..]
immibis|2 months ago
Models can't be open source anyway, because they don't have source.
ecb_penguin|2 months ago
Open source means the source is available. Anything else is just political.
tzs|2 months ago
AGPLv3 has provisions that are predicated on remote interaction over computer networks. Put modified AGPLv3 software on a computer that users interact with over RS232 terminals and you don't have to give users the source. Replace those RS232 terminals with X servers that let the users interact with the program over Ethernet and you do have to give those users the source.
Aachen|2 months ago
cwillu|2 months ago
ecb_penguin|2 months ago
wahnfrieden|2 months ago