Open source is not a license. Open source literally just means that the source is openly available. It does not include the right for you to reuse or change any of the source.

That's why most of the time, people are talking about "Free Open Source Software" (FOSS) when they think of openly licensed source code.

Anyhow, I would not necessarily deem a project OSS, just because the used language is readable by default. To me, OSS needs at least the developers intention to make it openly available.

[–] aberrate_junior_beatnik@midwest.social 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Open-source software (OSS) is computer software that is released under a license in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software and its source code to anyone and for any purpose.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software

[–] maxmalrichtig@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Well put me in a dress and call me Sheryl. Never knew that the "accepted definitions" were really that close. Thanks!

I knew that some definitions of OSS were really basic (as in "as long as there is source at some point") but I didn't know that the OSI definition was so close to the idea of "free software".

I found the read about the history and similarities & differences quite interesting: https://web.archive.org/web/20180915200609/http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

[–] Aatube@kbin.social 4 points 9 months ago

put me in a dress and call me Sheryl

That's a colorful expression if I've ever seen one

[–] MinekPo1@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 9 months ago

While I agree with you , the Open Software Initiative doesn't :

Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code.

So according to the OSI's definition of open source , a project being public on github , but with out a license or with a license which does not comply with the requirements set out by the OSI