I would say that Open Source, by any definition of the word, does have the assumption that you are allowed to modify and publish what you create at least in some form or another, even if it would be under a non-commercial clause or a license with other requirements.
When the licence explicitly says all you are allowed to do is access the code “solely for the purposes of review, compilation and non-commercial distribution”, that’s not open source.
When the licence explicitly says all you are allowed to do is access the code “solely for the purposes of review, compilation and non-commercial distribution”, that’s not open source.
I’d say that is open source. But not free and open source
Don’t know why people are downvoting you here. This OSI definition definitely isn’t modern and doesn’t match what people expect when they see open source.
That is one definition of open source
I agree that it is great to meet all these criteria, but especially restricting commercial use is a pretty reasonable thing to do
I would say that Open Source, by any definition of the word, does have the assumption that you are allowed to modify and publish what you create at least in some form or another, even if it would be under a non-commercial clause or a license with other requirements.
When the licence explicitly says all you are allowed to do is access the code “solely for the purposes of review, compilation and non-commercial distribution”, that’s not open source.
I’d say that is open source. But not free and open source
OSI’s definition is the oldest and original definition. It’s decades old at this point.
It’s source available, nothing more.
Yeah, and shit changes. Remind me again what the IT landscape looked like decades ago?
It was better.
Don’t know why people are downvoting you here. This OSI definition definitely isn’t modern and doesn’t match what people expect when they see open source.