alt Hacker NewsIt would be "source available", if anything, not "open source".
> An open-source license is a type of license for computer software and other products that allows the source code, blueprint or design to be used, modified or shared (with or without modification) under defined terms and conditions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
Companies have been really abusing what open source means- claiming something is "open source" cause they share the code and then having a license that says you can't use any part of it in any way.
Similarly if you ever use that software or depending on where you downloaded it from, you might have agreed not to decompile or read the source code. Using that code is a gamble.
Replies
But, for example, isn't Cannonball (SEGA Outrun source port) open source?
But clean room reverse engineered code can have its own license, no?
Open source never meant free to begin with and was never software specific, that’s a colloquialism and I’d love to say “language evolves” in favor of the software community’s use but open source is used in other still similar contexts, specifically legal and public policy ones
FOSS specifically means/meant free and open source software, the free and software words are there for a reason
so we don’t need another distinction like “source available” that people need to understand to convey an already shared concept
yes, companies abuse their community’s interest in something by blending open source legal term as a marketing term
So instead of reverse engineering.. an llm/agent/whatever could simply produce custom apps for everyone, simply implementing the features an individual might want. A more viable path?