The term 'open source' has a well-established meaning defined by the Open Source Initiative's Open Source Definition (OSD), which includes the right for anyone — not just the publisher — to commercialize the software. Some companies attempt to redefine 'open source' to mean merely 'source code you can read,' motivated by a desire for commercial monopoly over their projects. This is dishonest: it exploits the strong open source brand while withholding the rights users associate with it. Publishers are free to release software under any terms, but should use accurate labels like 'source available' or 'fair code' rather than misappropriating the open source label. The post also warns against CLAs, recommending the DCO instead.
Sort: