It is open source but not free software.

No, it’s source available but not open source. Open source requires at minimum the license to distribute modified copies. Popular open source licenses such as MIT [1] take this further:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

This makes the license transitive so that derived works are also MIT licensed.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License?wprov=sfti1#Licens...

▲

sigseg1v 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not quite. You need to include the MIT license text when distributing the software*, but the software you build doesn't need to also be MIT.

*: which unfortunately most users of MIT libraries do not follow as I often have an extremely difficult time finding the OSS licenses in their software distributions

▲

aeon_ai 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

MIT is not copyleft. The copyright notice must be included for those incorporated elements, but other downstream code it remains part of can be licensed however it wants.

AGPL and GPL are, on the other hand, as you describe.

	▲	chongli 15 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Modifications can be licensed differently but that takes extra work. If I release a project with the MIT license at the top of each file and you download my project and make a 1-line change which you then redistribute, you need to explicitly mark that line as having a different license from the rest of the file otherwise it could be interpreted as also being MIT licensed. You also could not legally remove the MIT license from those files and distribute with all rights reserved. My original granting of permission to modify and redistribute continues downstream.

▲

ptx 42 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Open Source is the same thing as Free Software, just with the different name. The term "Open Source" was coined later to emphasize the business benefits instead of the rights and freedom of the users, but the four freedoms of the Free Software Definition [1] and the ten criteria of the Open Source Definition [2] describe essentially the same thing.

[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

[2] https://opensource.org/osd

▲

Xerox9213 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It’s is “source available” but not open source.

▲

cgfjtynzdrfht 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's "source available" [1], not open source [2].

Words have meaning and all that.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software

2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

▲

nothrabannosir 15 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> Words have meaning and all that.

Ironic put down when “open source” consists of two words which have meaning, but somehow doesn’t mean that when combined into one phrase.

Same with free software, in a way.

Programmers really are terrible at naming things.

▲

geokon 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

cant blame him. We're in a bit of a bananas situation where open source isnt the antonym of closed source

▲

jefftk an hour ago | parent [-]

This isn't that uncommon:

* If a country doesn't have "closed borders" then many foreigners can visit if they follow certain rules around visas, purpose, and length of stay. If instead anyone can enter and live there with minimal restrictions we say it has "open borders".

* If a journal isn't "closed access" it is free to read. If you additionally have permissions to redistribute, reuse, etc then it's "open access".

* If an organization doesn't practice "closed meetings" then outsiders can attend meetings to observe. If it additionally provides advance notice, allows public attendance without permission, and records or publishes minutes, then it has “open meetings.”

* A club that doesn't have "closed membership" is open to admitting members. Anyone can join provided they meet relevant criteria (if any) then it's "open membership".

EDIT: expanded this into a post: https://www.jefftk.com/p/open-source-is-a-normal-term

	▲	denotational an hour ago \| parent [-]
		* A set that isn't open isn't (necessarily) closed. * A set that is open can also be closed.