<@U028BEUFG2V> What you're doing is commonly refer...
# generald
donn
09/12/2023, 5:04 PM@Murat Eskiyerli What you're doing is commonly referred to as source-available, i.e., projects with public source code that do not meet the legal definition of open source.
m
Murat Eskiyerli
09/12/2023, 7:16 PMThere is no "legal" definition of open-source. If there was, there would not be a bunch of different licenses.
j
Jecel Assumpção Jr
09/12/2023, 7:24 PMNot "legal" in the sense that using the term in some way will get you sued in a court somewhere in the world, but the term was created by a group that then formed an international organization that maintains an official definition: https://opensource.org/osd/
Jecel Assumpção Jr
09/12/2023, 7:28 PMIt is just good manners to respect their position. Note that this was created to make companies happy that were nervous about "Free Software" (almost exactly the same, but with different goals). https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
m
Murat Eskiyerli
09/12/2023, 7:58 PMIt is classical FUD pioneered by IBM. Google's business model is totally dependent on free use of open-source software. Just check number of open-source licenses in an Android phone. A non-sale clause would destroy their business model.