Anyone can freely license a work to the public, and copyright holders were doing that long before modern computers were invented.
“Open source” (other than, say, in the context of open water sources or intelligence or journalistic sources, where it was rarely used) as a descriptive term did not enter the common lexicon until 1998 and that was specifically to refer to software source code.
These are motion pictures, not software. “Open source” is about the latter.
It's not popular, but even creative commons, the organisation that wrote the licence they are using, prefers the term "free cultural work" https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/freeworks/
They're "we won't sue you for using these" bytes. The terminology might be fuzzy but I feel like everyone in this thread understands the concept.
But... you'll see Netflix calls it "OPEN SOURCE CONTENT" if you click the link.
You are right! At least the link title got it right.
I believe open source is about the law. Software is one way it can be applied.
IAAL (but this is not legal advice).
Anyone can freely license a work to the public, and copyright holders were doing that long before modern computers were invented.
“Open source” (other than, say, in the context of open water sources or intelligence or journalistic sources, where it was rarely used) as a descriptive term did not enter the common lexicon until 1998 and that was specifically to refer to software source code.
https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source...
5 replies →