As an aside, I don't really like the idea that "open source" should also have to be synonymous with "free software". Can the intended users access (and possibly modify at least locally) the source? Then it's open source. Why do we need "open source" to be identical to "free software"? Isn't that what "free software" means?
Any downvoters want to explain here? I don't understand what's wrong with the question. Please explain more fully why "open source" should be synonymous with "free software", or, if you downvoted for another reason, please tell me where I went wrong. Thanks.
I didn't downvote (I haven't even been to the page since before you posted that comment until just now), but maybe I can help you understand why I disagree with what you said:
tl;dr: The term "open source" was coined by the people who founded the OSI, and they provided a definition for it. The term many people in the open source community use for software whose source is available (but not open source) is "source-available software".
Comments
It doesn't appear to actually be open source:
> # Copyright 2010 Greplin, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Where's the license?
I think the term you want is "publishes", and not "open sources".
Good catch - updating now. It'll be under Apache 2.0. (edit: done)
Excellent! I mean, Apache's a bit of an overly complex license implementation for what it does, but what it does is pretty good.
Thanks.
As an aside, I don't really like the idea that "open source" should also have to be synonymous with "free software". Can the intended users access (and possibly modify at least locally) the source? Then it's open source. Why do we need "open source" to be identical to "free software"? Isn't that what "free software" means?
Any downvoters want to explain here? I don't understand what's wrong with the question. Please explain more fully why "open source" should be synonymous with "free software", or, if you downvoted for another reason, please tell me where I went wrong. Thanks.
I didn't downvote (I haven't even been to the page since before you posted that comment until just now), but maybe I can help you understand why I disagree with what you said:
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/opensource/when-open-source...
tl;dr: The term "open source" was coined by the people who founded the OSI, and they provided a definition for it. The term many people in the open source community use for software whose source is available (but not open source) is "source-available software".