alkonaut
6 hours ago
Source-available is great. It's not open source, but proprietary with source available is still much better than proprietary with closed source. Seeing the source makes it 100x more likely that I understand how a product works, or that I can easily work around bug until a fix is shipped.
You can argue all you want about the nomenclature and OSS side of source available, but I object strongly to the headline that it's meaningless. It's not. It's just "not open source".
HellzStormer
6 hours ago
The article argues that most source available licenses also provide more freedom than only reading the code, such as using it and modifying with some limits.
But "source available", english-wise, sounds like you can only read it.
This pushes some to avoid the term and say open source since that's much closer to their what the license does, even if they are not exactly open source.
The argument is that "fair source" would be a much clearer term for most of the "source available with extra freedoms" stuff, and I agree.