Wikipedia

Source-available software

Source-available softwareissoftwarereleased through asource codedistribution model that includes arrangements where the source can be viewed, and in some cases modified, but without necessarily meeting the criteria to be calledopen-source.[1]The licenses associated with the offerings range from allowing code to be viewed for reference to allowing code to be modified and redistributed for both commercial and non-commercial purposes.[2]

Distinction from free and open-source software

edit

Any software issource-availablein the broad sense as long as its source code is distributed along with it, even if the user has no legal rights to use, share, modify or evencompileit. It is possible for a software to be both source-available software andproprietary software(e.g.id Software'sDoom).

In contrast, the definitions of free software and open-source software are much narrower.Free softwareand/oropen-source softwareis also alwayssource-available software,but not all source-available software is also free software and/or open-source software. This is because the official definitions of those terms require considerable additional rights as to what the user can do with the available source (including, typically, the right to use said software, with attribution, in derived commercial products).[3]

In the broad sense, any FOSS license is asource-availablelicense. In the narrow sense,[1]the termsource-availablespecifically excludes FOSS software.

Non-free licenses

edit

The following source-available software licenses are considerednon-free licensesbecause they have limitations that prevent them from beingopen-sourceaccording to theOpen Source Initiativeandfreeto theFree Software Foundation.

Commons Clause

edit

The Commons Clause, created by Fossa, Inc., is anaddendumto anopen-source softwarelicense that restricts users from selling the software. Under the combined license, the software is source-available, but not open-source.[4]

On August 22, 2018,Redis Labsshifted someRedisModules from theGNU Affero General Public License[5][6]to a combination of theApache License2.0 and the Commons Clause.[7][8]

In September 2018,Matthew Garrettcriticized Commons Clause calling it an "older way of doing things" and said it "doesn't help thecommons".[9]

Business Source License

edit
Further information:Business Source License

Business Source License has been introduced byMariaDB Corporationin 2016 and rapidly became one of the most adopted "delayed open source" licenses.[10]It prohibits use of the code in production environments, where a commercial license is required.[11]

Functional Source License

edit

Functional Source License has been introduced in November 2023 by Sentry, as a simpler alternative to Business Source License.[12]It prohibits any "competing" use of the code, to preserve the rights of the author to economically exploit it, but applies for a limited time, after which the code itself is considered to be available underApache LicenseorMIT License.[13]

GitLab Enterprise Edition License (EE License)

edit

The GitLab Enterprise Edition License is used exclusively byGitLab's commercial offering.[14]GitLab Inc. openly discloses that the EE License makes their Enterprise Edition product "proprietary, closed source code."[15]GitLab also releases an open-source Community Edition under theMIT License.[16]This makes GitLab an example of anopen corecompany.

Mega Limited Code Review Licence

edit
Further information:Mega (service) § History

In 2016, Mega Ltd. released thesource codeof theirMegaclients under the Mega Limited Code Review Licence, which only permits usage of the code "for the purposes of review and commentary".[17]The source code was released after former directorKim Dotcomstated that he would "create a Mega competitor that is completely open source and non-profit" following his departure from Mega Ltd.[18][19]

Microsoft Shared Source Initiative

edit
Further information:Shared Source Initiative § Restricted licenses

Microsoft'sShared Source Initiative,launched in May 2001, comprises 5 licenses, 2 of which areopen-sourceand 3 of which are restricted. The restricted licenses under this scheme are the Microsoft Limited Public License (Ms-LPL),[20]the Microsoft Limited Reciprocal License (Ms-LRL),[21]and the Microsoft Reference Source License (Ms-RSL).[22]

Old Scilab License

edit
Further information:Scilab § License

Prior to version 5,Scilabdescribed itself as "the open source platform fornumerical computation"[23]but had a license[24]that forbade commercial redistribution of modified versions. Versions 5 and later are distributed under theGPL-compatibleCeCILLlicense.

Server Side Public License

edit
Further information:Server Side Public License

TheServer Side Public Licenseis a modification of theGNU Affero General Public Licensecreated by theMongoDBproject. It modifies a clause relating to usage of the licensed work over a network, stating that if SSPL-licensed software is incorporated into a "service" offered to other users, the source code for the entirety of the service (including without limitation all software and APIs that would be required for a user to run an instance of the service themselves) must be released under the SSPL.[25]The license is considered non-free by theOpen Source Initiative,DebianandRed Hat,as it contains conditions that are unduly discriminatory towards commercial use of the software.[26][27]

SugarCRM Public License

edit
Further information:SugarCRM § License

In 2007Michael Tiemann,president of OSI, had criticized[28]companies such asSugarCRMfor promoting their software as "open source" when in fact it did not have an OSI-approved license. In SugarCRM's case, it was because the software is so-called "badgeware"[29]since it specified a "badge" that must be displayed in the user interface. SugarCRM's open source version was re-licensed under the GPL version 3 in 2007,[30]and later theGNU Affero GPLversion 3 in 2010.[31]

TrueCrypt License

edit
Further information:TrueCrypt § License and source model

The TrueCrypt License was used by theTrueCryptdisk encryptionutility.[32]When TrueCrypt was discontinued, theVeraCryptforkswitched to theApache License,but retained the TrueCrypt License for code inherited from TrueCrypt.[33]

TheOpen Source Initiativerejects the TrueCrypt License, as "it has elements incompatible with theOSD."[34]TheFree Software Foundationcriticizes the license for restricting who can execute the program, and for enforcing a trademark condition.[35]

BeeGFS End User License Agreement

edit

BeeGFS EULA is the license of the distributed parallel file system BeeGFS, except the client for Linux, which is licensed underGPLv2.[36]

BeeGFS source code is publicly available from their website,[37]and because of this they claiming BeeGFS as "Open-Source" software;[38]it is in fact not because this license prohibits distributing modified versions of the software, or using certain features of the software without authorization.[39]

See also

edit

References

edit
  1. ^ab"DoD Open Source Software (OSS) FAQ: Is there a name for software whose source code is publicly available, but does not meet the definition of open source software?".Chief Information Officer.U.S. Department of Defense. Archived fromthe originalon Jul 24, 2018.Retrieved23 Jul2018.
  2. ^Fortunato, Laura;Galassi, Mark(17 May 2021)."The case for free and open source software in research and scholarship".Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A.379(2197).doi:10.1098/rsta.2020.0079.PMID33775148.
  3. ^"The Open Source Definition | Open Source Initiative".opensource.org.
  4. ^"Commons Clause License".Commons Clause License.Retrieved2018-08-24.
  5. ^Shoolman, Yiftach (5 July 2016)."Why Redis Labs' Modules are AGPL".Redis Labs.Retrieved2018-08-24.
  6. ^Claburn, Thomas."Redis has a license to kill: Open-source database maker takes some code proprietary".The Register.Retrieved2018-08-24.
  7. ^"Commons Clause License".Commons Clause License.Retrieved2018-08-24.
  8. ^Asay, Matt."Why Redis Labs made a huge mistake when it changed its open source licensing strategy".TechRepublic.Retrieved2018-08-24.
  9. ^The Commons Clause doesn't help the commonsMatthew Garrett's blog
  10. ^"Delayed Open Source Publication".Open Source Initiative.Retrieved25 Feb2024.
  11. ^"Adopting and Developing BSL Software".MariaDB.Retrieved25 Feb2024.
  12. ^"Introducing the Functional Source License: Freedom without Free-riding".Sentry's blog.Retrieved25 Feb2024.
  13. ^"FSL - Functional Source License".Functional Source License.Retrieved25 Feb2024.
  14. ^"The GitLab Enterprise Edition (EE) license (the" EE License ")".GitLab.GitLab Inc. 16 May 2018.Retrieved23 Jul2018.
  15. ^Sijbrandij, Sid (20 Jul 2016)."GitLab is open core, GitHub is closed source".GitLab.GitLab Inc.Retrieved23 Jul2018.
  16. ^"GitLab Community Edition LICENSE file".GitLab.GitLab Inc. 15 May 2018.Retrieved23 Jul2018.
  17. ^"meganz/MEGAsync".GitHub.2017-09-07.Retrieved2018-08-24.
  18. ^"Interviews: Kim Dotcom Answers Your Questions - Slashdot".yro.slashdot.org.2015-07-30.Retrieved2018-08-24.
  19. ^"Kim Dotcom promises to launch an open-source competitor to Mega (updated)".Engadget.2015-07-31.Retrieved2018-08-24.
  20. ^"Microsoft Limited Public License (Ms-LPL)".Microsoft.
  21. ^"Microsoft Limited Reciprocal License (Ms-LRL)".Microsoft.
  22. ^"Microsoft Reference Source License".Microsoft. 2016-07-06.Retrieved2016-07-06."Reference use" means use of the software within your company as a reference, in read-only form, for the sole purposes of debugging your products, maintaining your products, or enhancing the interoperability of your products with the software, and specifically excludes the right to distribute the software outside of your company.
  23. ^"The open source platform for numerical computation".INRIA.Retrieved2008-01-04.
  24. ^"SCILAB License".INRIA. Archived fromthe originalon 2005-12-12.Retrieved2008-01-04.
  25. ^Staff, Ars (October 16, 2019)."In 2019, multiple open source companies changed course—is it the right move?".Ars Technica.
  26. ^Vaughan-Nichols, Steven J."MongoDB" open-source "Server Side Public License rejected".ZDNet.Archivedfrom the original on January 16, 2019.RetrievedJanuary 17,2019.
  27. ^"MongoDB's licensing changes led Red Hat to drop the database from the latest version of its server OS".GeekWire.January 16, 2019.Archivedfrom the original on January 17, 2019.RetrievedJanuary 17,2019.
  28. ^Tiemann, Michael(2007-06-21)."Will The Real Open Source CRM Please Stand Up?".Open Source Initiative.Retrieved2008-01-04.
  29. ^Berlind, David (21 November 2006)."Are SugarCRM, Socialtext, Zimbra, Scalix and others abusing the term" open source? "".ZDNet.Archived fromthe originalon 1 January 2008.Retrieved4 January2008.
  30. ^Vance, Ashlee(2007-07-25)."SugarCRM trades badgeware for GPL 3".The Register.Retrieved2008-09-08.
  31. ^OSI Board of Directors (19 January 2021)."The SSPL is Not an Open Source License".Open Source Initiative.Retrieved23 January2021.
  32. ^"truecrypt-archive/License-v3.1.txt at master · DrWhax/truecrypt-archive".GitHub.28 Mar 2014.Retrieved23 Jul2018.
  33. ^"root/License.txt".VeraCrypt.TrueCrypt Foundation. 17 Oct 2016.Retrieved23 Jul2018.
  34. ^Phipps, Simon(15 November 2013),TrueCrypt or false? Would-be open source project must clean up its act,InfoWorld,retrieved20 May2014
  35. ^"Various Licenses and Comments about Them".GNU Operating System.Free Software Foundation.Retrieved23 Jul2018.
  36. ^"BeeGFS End User License Agreement - Documentation - BeeGFS".BeeGFS.Retrieved8 Jun2020.
  37. ^"GitLab".BeeGFS.Retrieved8 Jun2020.
  38. ^"Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)".BeeGFS Wiki.Retrieved8 Jun2020.
  39. ^"End-User License Agreement"(plain text).2019-09-10.Retrieved2021-01-26.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Source-available_software&oldid=1256723302"