Friendly reminder to everyone that specific patches to the FAQ are
always welcome :)

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Chad Perrin <> 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: ]
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to