← Back to context

Comment by loire280

4 hours ago

"Source available" is already a common term for source code that is provided with a very restrictive license or under regular copyright.

6 comments

loire280

Reply
dcss_gardener  4 hours ago

I've also heard it used to describe projects that are open source by anyone's measure but have contribution or project governance requirements like for example sqlite.

"Source available" is definitely in much wider use than "weights available" but it's not that common and it's not used consistently at all in my experience.

Weights are different enough from source code I don't find the metaphor useful or compelling. I don't see any value in trying to apply it to a novel subdomain of software engineering, frankly.

  • mrob  4 hours ago

    >I've also heard it used to describe projects that are open source by anyone's measure but have contribution or project governance requirements like for example sqlite.

    Anybody calling SQLite "source available" is mistaken. Are you sure they weren't confusing "source available" with "open core" (Open Source + proprietary add-ons)? SQLite's source code is public domain, which meets the Open Source Definition and is true Open Source. But they also sell proprietary add-ons to fund its development:

    https://sqlite.org/prosupport.html

  • altermetax  4 hours ago

    Honestly, I think "source available" is used pretty consistently, and if someone said "weights available" I would immediately understand what they mean.

    No one calls SQLite "source available", and if they do, they're doing it more as a protest of their development model than being serious.

jamiejquinn  4 hours ago

A license like GPL is very restrictive, but I wouldn't call it source available. Maybe I'm missing your point?