Hmmm, if the license doesn't allow modification and redistribution, then it's not open source — it's "source-available." Open source, by definition, includes those rights. Just having access to the code isn't enough.
The rest of your comment didn't. How did you want to consider it?
> I think if we can make a distinction between modification and redistribution then open source can be less proscriptive.
I think new definitions should have new terms.
> If the source is open to view, and you are able to change that code in any way, just not redistribute your modifications, what would you call that?
Source available.
Free as in beer, as in the software is free if you are giving it away.
> I think new definitions should have new terms.
The point of the article is that we already have terms that sound like they fit. You're saying you don't agree with that as new definition and the article is saying they don't agree with your more strict definition.
Isn't that the way with everything when there's a difference of opinion on the internet. The ones that have the most funding/largest platform end up winning the argument.
You may want to ignore what words have come to mean and try to derive a literal meaning from their constituent words, but then you need to fight established common use.
It feels like OSI and Open Source advocates spend a lot of time and effort trying to fight people from using "open source" and "free software" in their literal meanings rather than the other way round. The established common use is only really within the communities that use them.
The history is much discussed. This ignorance would be fixed by a Wikipedia article. And I doubt an open source developer with forceful unconventional opinions about the definitions of open source and FOSS never saw FSF or OSI mentioned.
> The established common use is only really within the communities that use them.
This is tautological. Terms are used in the communities which use them.
The article was directed to the community which uses terms like open source and FOSS. I am confident my comments took less time to write than the article.
> Isn't that the way with everything when there's a difference of opinion on the internet. The ones that have the most funding/largest platform end up winning the argument.
No. Most attempts to change the definition of open source come from come from companies attempting to profit from the change. Most resistance comes from individuals protecting a gift economy.
I think that’s probably illegal, but I have definitely heard of companies doing it.
For example, with RedHat your subscription for security updates/etc can be terminated.