Friendly reminder to everyone that specific patches to the FAQ are always welcome :)
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Chad Perrin <per...@apotheon.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 05:43:07AM +0200, Engel Nyst wrote: >> >> In case it helps in any way, I'd suggest: >> >> "You can see the PHP source code, so it's Open Source, right?" >> "No. The code of applications written in languages like PHP or >> JavaScript is visible, but that alone doesn't mean anything yet: it >> always depends on the license under which the code is distributed. >> Only if the code is licensed under an approved Open Source license, >> it's Open Source. The licenses in the list maintained by OSI are >> reviewed before approval, to make sure that everyone receiving the >> code has the perpetual right to use, modify, share and reshare the >> code freely, as well as other criteria as listed in the Open Source >> Definition. It's those criteria that define Open Source, not access to >> the source code alone. >> If the code is not under one of the approved licenses, then please do >> not call it Open Source." > > I missed this until now. > > "Only if the code is licensed under an approved Open Source license" is > probably not the most ideal way to say this part of it. Rather, say that > it is open source only if "the code is available under a license that > conforms to the Open Source Definition". There are, in fact, open source > licenses out there that are not OSI approved, and there is open source > software that uses licenses that are not OSI approved. The FAQ should > strive for accuracy. > > -- > Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss