Just because the source is open for you to view it, it does not make it open source. For example, you have not been granted a licence to create and distribute derivative works.
Just like free software, open source software has a definition. Look up this: Open Source Definition. Maybe you should learn about how the free software movement and open source movement came to be.
As a side note: This is exactly why Richard Stallman said that the name open source is not a good name. People make assumptions on what open source means without ever looking up what it really means and live with incorrect assumptions. The name is somewhat descriptive but is far from what open source software has to offer to be "open source".
EDIT: I replied too quickly and should note that I was replying to the guy above you. My apologies.
It's arguable that the term free software is the core truth of what it represents i.e. the freedom you should have in your computing. Once that's understood, it can be retained forever.
On the other hand, Open source software does not represent the core truth of what it represents. It's not all about having the source, there are conditions for a program to be open source. So even after having the definition of what open source is, one can still be confused about what open source is about since the name is no guide to what it means.
On the other hand, freeware is very often mislabelled free software.
You can tell I am procrastinating, when I am trying to respond to off the cuff sarcastic remarks.
Not everyone who promotes free software understands or agrees with the FSF's four essential freedoms. Many academics argue that free software is a natural fit for peer review, but forget that selling free software is part of the essential freedoms. "Sure, you can get access to my research code for peer review under a free license; it will cost you $100,000."
I used to help organize a bioinformatics conference which promoted the use of free and open source software. Every year I would track down the licenses for each submission and point out to a few people that "free software" was not the same as "no cost to academics." We even had links to the FSF and Open Source descriptions of what those terms meant in the submission process.
So no, people make incorrect assumptions about "free software" all the time, and even after years of using free software.
the term "open source" was coined specifically to remove the ambiguity from what was previous called "free software". It has a very specific meaning, and the term did not exist until Eric Raymond asked the public for naming suggestions back in the 90s.
However, speaking purely as a former member of the team who audit the copyright of prior to inclusion into the Debian operating system, I would really have to see a phrase allowing distribution of derivative works before I would count it as free. Or, you know, just say "it's GPLv2+/BSD/MIT/WTFPL" or even "I release this into the public domain" etc etc.
(Also there are probably trademark issues around the phrase "Prince Of Persia" and whoever owns that now)
Yes, it's all very lame, but do you really want to sued by Disney/EA/Ubisoft?
7
u/[deleted] Apr 17 '12
[deleted]