Not really, someone could just use that misleadingly too, just as with "open source".
"Open Source" already doesn't cover these special licenses, instead, the "source available" is used. Any also acknowledges this actually - the license they are using is called the "Any Source Available License 1.0".
After a bit of brushing up on my acronyms, one could indeed use FOSS or FLOSS to denote that a piece of software is either free (or libre) or just open source [0].
The term "open source" is not referring to software with a free license, but to software whose source code is available to the public irrespective of license [1].
That article you post as [1] refers to https://opensource.org/osd/ for "The official definition of open source software (which is published by the Open Source Initiative and is too long to include here)"
The FSF article directly follow with this, which contradicts your claim: "However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software” is “You can look at the source code.” Indeed, most people seem to misunderstand “open source software” that way. (The clear term for that meaning is “source available.”) That criterion is much weaker than the free software definition, much weaker also than the official definition of open source. It includes many programs that are neither free nor open source."
And the OSD also disagrees: "The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software."
Terms that can be summarized as "whose source code is available to the public" are called "source available", even by the FSF.
GNU also misses the point a bit. With open source, the source is open, but some other general rights are included too, like to restriction to the type usage. Lately, people and corporations made a lot of money on the backs of open source developers, so a new type of license emerged, and this would be the one that really is just about the "open" "source", but to make it distinct from the already widely known term, people call these "source available". Getting back to the topic, Any knows these distinctions too - or at least their lawyer did, because they call their license a "Source Available License"[0]. Source-available however doesn't carry the coolness of what "open source" brings - so on the marketing page, they refer to the project as "open source", which kind of can be argued, since the majority of it is indeed proper open source.
Not really, someone could just use that misleadingly too, just as with "open source".
"Open Source" already doesn't cover these special licenses, instead, the "source available" is used. Any also acknowledges this actually - the license they are using is called the "Any Source Available License 1.0".
After a bit of brushing up on my acronyms, one could indeed use FOSS or FLOSS to denote that a piece of software is either free (or libre) or just open source [0].
The term "open source" is not referring to software with a free license, but to software whose source code is available to the public irrespective of license [1].
[0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html
[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
That article you post as [1] refers to https://opensource.org/osd/ for "The official definition of open source software (which is published by the Open Source Initiative and is too long to include here)"
The FSF article directly follow with this, which contradicts your claim: "However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software” is “You can look at the source code.” Indeed, most people seem to misunderstand “open source software” that way. (The clear term for that meaning is “source available.”) That criterion is much weaker than the free software definition, much weaker also than the official definition of open source. It includes many programs that are neither free nor open source."
And the OSD also disagrees: "The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software."
Terms that can be summarized as "whose source code is available to the public" are called "source available", even by the FSF.
1 reply →
GNU also misses the point a bit. With open source, the source is open, but some other general rights are included too, like to restriction to the type usage. Lately, people and corporations made a lot of money on the backs of open source developers, so a new type of license emerged, and this would be the one that really is just about the "open" "source", but to make it distinct from the already widely known term, people call these "source available". Getting back to the topic, Any knows these distinctions too - or at least their lawyer did, because they call their license a "Source Available License"[0]. Source-available however doesn't carry the coolness of what "open source" brings - so on the marketing page, they refer to the project as "open source", which kind of can be argued, since the majority of it is indeed proper open source.
[0] https://github.com/anyproto/anytype-kotlin/blob/main/LICENSE...
Damn, didn't even think about that.