The Open Source Definition (OSD ) is used by the Open Source Initiative to determine whether a software license is compliant with Open Source ( Open Source ) standards. Based on the Debian free software directives , which are mostly written by Bruce Perence .
The term “Open Source” was created as an alternative to the term “Free software”. For free software, open source is required, which follows from the very definition of “Free software” ( “Freedom 1” and “Freedom 3” ).
Content
Open Source Initiative Open Source License Requirements
- Free distribution. This means that the license should not impose restrictions on the sale and distribution of software.
- Available Sources. Even if the software does not come with source code, these texts should be easily accessible. These should be human-edited source texts , and not the output of obfuscators , preprocessors, and similar intermediate forms.
- Therefore, freeware is not open source.
- Possibility of modification. The simple ability to read the source code does not allow you to experiment with them and release modifications. A license claiming to be “open” should allow not only reading the code, but also modifying, using parts of the code in other projects, and distributing the resulting programs under the same license.
- Id Software released Doom source code (but not data) in 1998 under an “educational” license. When the failed disk put an end to the promising port, the texts were relicensed under the GPL : if the license were open, someone would definitely have a backup copy [1] .
- Even in the case of inviolability of the original source code, derivative programs and their source texts must be freely distributed. In order not to confuse the user, free licenses may leave the author some rights - for example, a derivative program must bear a different name or version; or it should consist of copyright source texts and patches to them. However, the author must allow the distribution of compiled binary files and the source code of the derivative program in one form or another.
- The company Netscape , releasing the source code of the browser, left the name Netscape. Despite this clause, the Mozilla Public License is open.
- No discrimination against people and groups of people. Some countries, such as the United States , have some restrictions on software exports. A free license may remind you that there are such rules, but it cannot set its own.
- One of the “nearly open” licenses created during apartheid prohibited the use of the program by the South African police . Apartheid fell, but the demand remained.
- No discrimination on purpose. A free license should permit all types of activities, including genetic and nuclear research, commercial applications, etc. Commercial applications are specifically mentioned: “We want commercial users to connect to the community, rather than consider themselves cut off from it.”
- As with free software, the author’s personal convictions should not interfere with the case, and items like “cannot be used in abortion clinics” are prohibited. Indeed, one can prohibit abortion, the other - curses, the third - both that and another, and the fourth - any of these prohibitions, leaving nothing from freedom.
- Distribution of the license. Rights associated with open source software should be applicable to all users of the program without entering into additional agreements, for example, non-disclosure agreements.
- In other words, any open license will be public .
- The license should not be tied to a specific product. Rights to the program code should not depend on whether the program is part of any product. A person who distributes the program in isolation from the collection or transfers part of the code to another product has the same rights as the collection gave. This requirement closes some licensed loopholes.
- ReactOS and Wine actively exchange code. Based on the Linux kernel, they build firmware for various devices. This is possible because not a single line of code, not a single source text file is attached to any program.
- The license should not limit other software products. With the exception of banal incompatibility, the user has the right to choose what to use. For example, you cannot require that the rest of the programs delivered with this one also be open.
- Fresh versions of Ghostscript had a license that prohibited using the program with proprietary software (obsolete versions were released under the GPL ). This practice was abandoned in 2007. Some Microsoft Shared Source licenses allow the creation of software only for Windows .
- The license must be technologically neutral. That is, the license should not require anything from the interface or technologies used in the derivative program.
- For example, the item “the user must accept the license by clicking on a certain button” is unsuitable - this will prevent the software from being used in command line mode without user intervention. This item also serves to close licensed loopholes.
See also
- Definition of free cultural works
- Free Software Definition
Notes
Links
- Definition of Open Source (translation with comments by Sergey Kuznetsov) (Russian) on CITKIT
- Open Source Definition Original on the Open Source Initiative
- Definitions and terms of licensing programs in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation (inaccessible link from 02-04-2015 [1597 days])