While most people follow the OSD criteria, there is nothing that says open source software must follow it. Nor is the OSD the only set of criteria or the only definition.
Open source means the source is available. Anything else is just political.
Open source means the source is available. Anything else is just political.
We don't have to have this debate again. Folks have tried this rhetorical tack so often there is an entire wikipedia page[1] dedicated to explaining the difference between source available and open source...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software
"Conversely, Richard Stallman argues the "obvious meaning" of term "open source" is that the source code is public/accessible for inspection, without necessarily any other rights granted"
See, here's another Wikipedia article with another opinion that disagrees, and RMS is obviously an authority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source#%22Open%22_versus_...
All of this is pointless so the common and accepted definition should be preferred. Which does not add extra political criteria for requirements.
In case you don't know, the dictionary doesn't prescribe meaning, it catalogs the commonly accepted usage of a word. That's why it listed "literally" to mean "figuratively", because along the way, people started using "literally" to mean "figuratively", so that's the definition now.
The common definition of open source does not match the OSI definition...
> people generally use “shared source” or something
"Shared source" was a Microsoft license and not at all generally accepted by anyone. A quick Google search found no references to this term used to describe open source.
On the topic of descriptivism/prescriptivism, Richard Stallman is very pedantic and prescriptive about how people use language (e.g. the GNU/Linux thing) so I don’t really respect him as an authority on this topic at all
Also if there are restrictions you can argue it doesn’t even meet that definition because it’s not “freely available”
I may have mixed up “shared source” and “source available” (which seems more common)
I’ve put a poll on a Discord server I’m on (about calculators, so I don’t think there will be bias) and I’ll report back with what people think
Edit: I had three people vote and they agreed with me but also someone mentioned that I should probably let it go now which fair, it’s too easy to get invested in Internet arguments that don’t matter
The definitions from the FSF and OSI are very similar, and the lists of approved licenses are mostly the same.
Where was that defined so? And most of all, given the domain of information technology, who understand open source to cover cases where the source is available ie. only for reviewing?
The purpose of words and terms is so that people can exchange ideas effectively and precisely, without needing to explain the terms every time from the grounds up. Having different groups having divergent definitions on the same words is counterproductive towards that goal. In my view, labeling a release "open source" with very big limitations on how the source is used is just not about marketing, it's miscommunication.
If "open source" and "source available" (and "open weights") mean the same thing, the how come people have come up with the two terms to begin with? The difference is recognized in official contexts as well, i.e. https://web.archive.org/web/20180724032116/https://dodcio.de... (search for "source available"; unfortunately linking directly doesn't seem to work with archive.org pages).
It doesn't seem there is any benefit in using less precise terms when better-defined ones are available.