People often use the OSI's Open Source Definition when using the term "open source". One of its criteria says "The license must allow modifications and derived works" which this license does not allow.

[+] tux0r -6 points 2 months ago (5 children)

People often use the OSI’s Open Source Definition when using the term “open source”.

Which is one of the possible definitions. Mine is "you can see the code". Everything else falls into "free software".

[–] thejevans@lemmy.ml 17 points 2 months ago (3 children)

That's nice. If your goal is to ever talk to people about open source software, that's going to create a lot of unnecessary confusion.

On top of that, accepting this bolsters companies to use this kind of a definition specifically to take advantage of the mental model that many people have connecting "open source" with OSI.

[–] tux0r -5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

If your goal is to ever talk to people about open source software, that’s going to create a lot of unnecessary confusion.

I guess that my definition of open source is not that uncommon, given that the terms "free software" and "libre software" exist and are rather well-established by this point.

[–] thejevans@lemmy.ml 16 points 2 months ago

The fact that there is overlap has no bearing on whether your definition is common.

[–] chebra@mstdn.io 1 points 2 months ago

@tux0r You are right that this mistaken definition is quite common. Smart person would try to correct the mistake, not defend it.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)