It is absolutely true that a work can be in the public domain and not have source available (or even contributable). But that doesn't really matter to most people. The question for most people is not whether something is open source, but whether they can copy and make use of a work without being held liable for copyright infringement. SQLite happens to be both public domain and open-source to an extent (i.e., source available).
Conversely, open source doesn't necessarily mean "free to use without encumbrance." There are many open-source licenses that forbid certain uses (e.g. Business Source License). On the other hand, a work in the public domain is free to be used by all without restriction.
A better analysis of open source vs. public domain would be in the form of a square, where one dimension would be the right to use the work, and the other dimension would be the ability to obtain and contribute source code.
The Business Source License is not an open source license. Open source does mean "free to use without encumbrance" - see points 5 and 6 of the Open Source Definition at https://opensource.org/osd
No one's saying public domain isn't useful. You're replying to a comment that's specifically and solely combatting the idea that public domain means open source.
Any definition of open source that doesn't include the public domain is out of touch with how real people use the words "open source" and is therefore useless. You can make up any definition you want, but if you insist on calling elephants "bananas", I'm not going to take you seriously
The problem with your analogy is that open source has a definition. As does public domain. As do elephants and bananas.
In your analogy we're not the ones calling elephants bananas, you are. We want to keep calling one bananas and the other elephants. You are suggesting that since elephants are similar to bananas you can simply use either word.
Legally, Open Source and Public Domain are -very- different animals. Open Source comes eith a copyright, and a license (which has requirements), public domain does not.
Of course public domain and open source are both "shipped as source code". Then again so is a fair bit of proprietary software. That doesn't make it open source either.
How people use the term "fair use" is out of touch with the legal definition. That doesn't change the legal definition, it means people use the term incorrectly.
> public domain software may be free software but is not certain to be.
Open Source relies on copyright and contract law (which are somewhat standardized or at least understood due to their importance in commerce). Public domain relies on other laws that can vary significantly.
No. At least according to the Open Source Initiative, public domain is not open source: https://opensource.org/blog/public-domain-is-not-open-source
It is absolutely true that a work can be in the public domain and not have source available (or even contributable). But that doesn't really matter to most people. The question for most people is not whether something is open source, but whether they can copy and make use of a work without being held liable for copyright infringement. SQLite happens to be both public domain and open-source to an extent (i.e., source available).
Conversely, open source doesn't necessarily mean "free to use without encumbrance." There are many open-source licenses that forbid certain uses (e.g. Business Source License). On the other hand, a work in the public domain is free to be used by all without restriction.
A better analysis of open source vs. public domain would be in the form of a square, where one dimension would be the right to use the work, and the other dimension would be the ability to obtain and contribute source code.
The Business Source License is not an open source license. Open source does mean "free to use without encumbrance" - see points 5 and 6 of the Open Source Definition at https://opensource.org/osd
2 replies →
No one's saying public domain isn't useful. You're replying to a comment that's specifically and solely combatting the idea that public domain means open source.
Any definition of open source that doesn't include the public domain is out of touch with how real people use the words "open source" and is therefore useless. You can make up any definition you want, but if you insist on calling elephants "bananas", I'm not going to take you seriously
The problem with your analogy is that open source has a definition. As does public domain. As do elephants and bananas.
In your analogy we're not the ones calling elephants bananas, you are. We want to keep calling one bananas and the other elephants. You are suggesting that since elephants are similar to bananas you can simply use either word.
Legally, Open Source and Public Domain are -very- different animals. Open Source comes eith a copyright, and a license (which has requirements), public domain does not.
Of course public domain and open source are both "shipped as source code". Then again so is a fair bit of proprietary software. That doesn't make it open source either.
How people use the term "fair use" is out of touch with the legal definition. That doesn't change the legal definition, it means people use the term incorrectly.
1 reply →
The linked article mentions public domain.
Please note that public domain laws vary depending on the country. What you call a banana might mean something different elsewhere.
You should read the text, it's not about calling elephants bananas but real issues with software in the public domain
6 replies →
Technically true, though this distinction only matters in a few countries.
> public domain software may be free software but is not certain to be.
Open Source relies on copyright and contract law (which are somewhat standardized or at least understood due to their importance in commerce). Public domain relies on other laws that can vary significantly.
https://opensource.org/blog/public-domain-is-not-open-source
Yes, public domain is a form of open source, but not of Open Source (for reasons that IMO are silly).