Hacker News Reader

It's open source, but not free software.

The OSI tried to get a trademark on the term "open source" to prevent it being used outside what they want, but it was denied as too broad a claim IIRC.

As such there is no canonical definition of "open source", however in the context of open source software, this would not be considered an open source code.

There are very very few things that are "open source" but not "free software". The main difference is ideological and/or tribal.

Not according to the OSI. So I guess you could say it's open source, but not Open Source.

I've always been fond of referring to such a thing as "source available" - and commercial software such as Radiator where you only get an un-obfuscated version of the source with a purchase as "source supplied".

"Available" just seems like a better word than "open" for this sort of case.

(the author apologises for overuse of quotes in the above but preferred to be consistent even at the potential cost of some irritation and/or incorrect usage)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com