Open source is all about the license. The code can all be available for anybody to look at but there might be a restrictive license preventing you from compiling it. A senior exec at my former company once said "Open source doesn't mean it's free".
"Open source doesn't mean it's free" is typically used to refer to implementation and support costs compared to commercial solutions, not to licensing shenanigans within self-styled open source projects.
Parent’s point is a good one: the specific terms of OSI’s definition of open source does hinge on licensing. Furthermore, “open source” is not mutually exclusive with “commercial” software like you imply. The US government specifically refers to OSI-style open source software as “commercial” precisely because of the licensing that comes with it. https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-2#FAR_2_101
Comments
Open source is all about the license. The code can all be available for anybody to look at but there might be a restrictive license preventing you from compiling it. A senior exec at my former company once said "Open source doesn't mean it's free".
"Open source doesn't mean it's free" is typically used to refer to implementation and support costs compared to commercial solutions, not to licensing shenanigans within self-styled open source projects.
Parent’s point is a good one: the specific terms of OSI’s definition of open source does hinge on licensing. Furthermore, “open source” is not mutually exclusive with “commercial” software like you imply. The US government specifically refers to OSI-style open source software as “commercial” precisely because of the licensing that comes with it. https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-2#FAR_2_101
Open source software can not restrict you from compiling it. You may have to pay to see it but then you are free to redistribute it.
What you are talking about is source available software.