Just participated in discussion about an open source on github.
What's your thoughts about it, must project explicitly allow redistribution and commercial use to be #opensource, or it is enough to just make source code available to reading/modifying?
@alexdeathway if you can read the code, you physically can change it.
You won't break into atoms if you will modify code, then build it and will use it or sell to anyone. That's how physics works 🙂
@WofWca how lack of license will stop you to use or modify the code?
For what you want to have a license?
@vitonsky Would you trust FSF on this?
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NoLicense
> Some developers think that code with no license is automatically in the public domain. That is not true under today's copyright law; rather, all copyrightable works are copyrighted by default. This includes programs. Absent a license to grant users freedom, they don't have any. In some countries, users that download code with no license may infringe copyright merely by compiling it or running it.
@WofWca what about leave those countries?
There are a lot of bad countries. Europe union ban USB, privacy, guns, knives.
That's not a reason to downgrade the world full of technologies. Just leave those countries and live something elsewhere
@WofWca that's definitely easier. But look around, they will change rules in your business next, as they do with apple when force them to change USB format, inject malware to break encryption in iCloud, implement alternative app store API like in android.
So it may be easier for single person, but not for business with money and some strategic plans
@vitonsky We sort of segued into a political debate, where I don't have a strong opinion.
But if you'd like it: sure, I don't like some things that are happening in some countries, but not all of them are good enough reasons to leave those countries.
Certainly not the fact that you can't modify a program that has no explicit license applied.
@WofWca sure. My point is it not necessary to have rights to re-sell the code to be an open source product.
If you can read the code and can change and rebuild it with no hassle - that is open source.
All other sauce like "right to sell", quick support, etc is just a part of product marketing to be competitive on public open source arena
@vitonsky The other person (jcubic) is right. Publishing source code is required, but not sufficient, for software to be open source. If a piece of software has published source code but does not allow redistribution or commercial use, that software is source-available but not open source.
@rogue why?
I mean i see your link to wiki, but that's not how reasoning does work. Something written on the internet and repeated billion times by billion people is not become a truth.
I'm interesting in opinions of people who capable for reasoning. Do you have your own opinion about it?
@rogue i'm not sure "opensource" have consistent meaning worldwide. Many AI projects call themself "open source", but they have dual-licenses/do not provide any code or source data they train models on.
Such usage of this term is well accepted by people.
The fact that some community have strict definition means nothing for me as for any people who rely on logic, not definitions in wiki
Robert Vitonsky
Alex Deathway 
WofWca
rogue