Open Source vs Source-Available
The cluster centers on debates over whether a software project qualifies as truly 'open source' or merely 'source-available' due to restrictive licenses that fail to meet open source definitions. Commenters frequently reference the Open Source Initiative criteria and urge accurate terminology.
Activity Over Time
Top Contributors
Keywords
Sample Comments
It's not open source, it's source-available, which is almost irrelevant in terms of openness and freedom
Sure, but then it's not "open source".
That's not open source. They make the source available but open source does not restrict what you can do with it other than sometimes requiring that you share the source for your binaries.
Yeah sure, just don't claim it's open source if the actual source is not open.
It is still open source it just isn't an open license.
You're "source available" don't call something open source when it's not
The opening line says "Open source" , but they aren't. Source available is the correct term.
It is not Open Source™, but it is open source.
It's not open-source, just source-available. Check the license.
Why wouldn't it be? It's open source but not free software.