The source is open. “Open Source” does not mean the FLOSS-flavour of Open in conventional speech. If you want to fight that battle, sure, it’s not unreasonable, but realize that you’re pushing a sub-consensus view.
[1] https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...
FOSS is "source-available" + other guarantees.
The vast majority of projects that call themselves open source mean the open source definition as defined by the open source initiative, or something equivalent.
You might not like or recognize the OSI and that's fine, but you can't decide what people mean when they say open source.
You are the one starting the battle and I don't understand your motives.
I just searched for "open source" in a search engine, I'm getting [1,2,3] and lists of "the best open source software". And they are all using the OSD. You are at odds with Wikipedia, IBM, RedHat and with Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple [4,5,6,7,8], and with everyone else, really.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
[2] https://www.redhat.com/en/topics/open-source/what-is-open-so...
[3] https://www.ibm.com/en-en/topics/open-source
[4] https://opensource.microsoft.com/
[5] https://opensource.google/
[6] https://aws.amazon.com/fr/opensource/
Check out wikipedia, or count google hits, or just talk to any computer geek who was alive in the 90s.
That said, I'm very impressed with the reverse engineering work on this having played it before.
The requirement to allow selling is also true for free software, and RMS had user rights in mind, not commercial interests.
There are also licenses which shows you the code, but you can't legally reuse parts of it. Even some of the licenses prohibit you from compiling and creating your own version and use it, yet alone study, modify and/or distribute.
There are many sinister versions of so-called open source software per your definition. The most famous ones in my book is Microsoft's VSCode and Google's Chrome.
Both have "open source" counterparts VSCodium & Chromium, yet they lack the sauce to perform like the closed source one, or is confined to its small space and prevented from operating like the closed source versions.
Can we call these crippled versions open source software? Yes, they compile & run, but to what extent? They are intentionally a shadow if their real selves, and this creates a situation where you can see the code but can't use it. They run afoul the idea behind open source by adopting a permissive license, and abusing the license to create the closed source, superior version which is force-fed to users.
Even GPL doesn't prohibit selling the software itself or other commercial/for profit uses. It bolsters four freedoms, and make sure that it's continued from generation to generation, maintainer to maintainer.
So, just because you don't agree on the ideas, ideals and consensus amongst the developers and open source / free software people, it doesn't give you the license to treat every codebase the way you see fit regardless of the license it contains.
Did this change?
[0]: https://arewefastyet.com/win10/benchmarks/overview?numDays=6...
In which situation outside the developer world people use this phrase… to mean something other than FLOSS?
Open source is not common speech. It's jargon. Jargon that's becoming popular outside the tech world because of the advocacy around open source and free software going on.
Or is it just a consensus you assume to be there based on the assumption that people in general would just take the words at face value?
Which I suppose is fair enough, and it seems like I may have originally replied to something you didn't say. I'd still disagree both about the lack of a consensus, based on my general experience, and about the meaning.
Don't get my hopes up by calling it open when you post it on HN. It's not that much to ask.
Would you mind elaborating on this? How is a software club a commercial setting?
As such, any of these might trigger the "only for ... non-commercial ... use" clause. So folks generally just don't sweat it.
"You may use or modify the software only for your own internal business purposes or for non-commercial or personal use. You may distribute the software or provide it to others only if you do so free of charge for non-commercial purposes. You may not alter, remove, or obscure any licensing, copyright, or other notices of the licensor in the software. Any use of the licensor’s trademarks is subject to applicable law."
Studying the software in a commercial setting seems to be permitted.
> No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor > > The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
See also [2]
[1] No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor