Hi Scot, I'm replying to both of your emails inline below.
> Well, its self-described as such;
>
> http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/opensource
Yes, Perseus' source code and texts both use licenses that fit the
OSI's definition of Open Source, the MPL and CC-BY-SA respectively.
But that has no bearing on the licenses of your programs.
> And actually non-commercial restrictions don't make something not open source. The open source licence that I release my own code under (creative commons: attribution non-commercial share-alike) includes the same sorts of terms.
The free and open source communities actually do broadly agree on
what constitutes "open source".
> And the OSI is by no means uncontroversial in the Free and Open Source community.
I am aware of that. They do however steward the use of the term Open
Source in the community, and the it is a strong norm that if someone
uses the term Open Source to refer to software, they're accepting
their interpretation of that (they did deliberately invent it in this
context, after all).
> Again, the GNU doesn't actually own the term any more than the OSI does.
They actually own it a lot less (they reject the term as pointing
people away from the freedoms they promote for users of software).
But the citation I gave to their rationale of selling software is
still valid; the OSI broadly share the reasons. After all, they are
particularly focused on businesses being able to use open source
software.
> Apart from releasing code to the public domain, there exists an entire panoply of open source, free and copyleft licences, some of which restrict commercial use, some don't.
There exists a panopoly of open source, free and copyleft licences,
as they fall under the definitions of open source and free software,
as defined by the OSI at http://opensource.org/osd and the FSF at
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
There is also a significant quantity of software for which the
source code is available, but which doesn't meet the above
criteria. It is misleading to call that open source; that is not how
the term developed, is commonly used, or is understood.
|