 | This articlerelies excessively onreferences toprimary sources. Please improve this article by addingsecondary or tertiary sources. Find sources: "Source-available software" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(July 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Source-available software issoftware released through asource code distribution 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]
Any software issource-available in 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 evencompile it. 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 software and/oropen-source software is 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-available license. In the narrow sense,[1] the termsource-available specifically excludes FOSS software.
The following source-available software licenses are considerednon-free licenses because they have limitations that prevent them from beingopen-source according to theOpen Source Initiative andfree to theFree Software Foundation.
The Commons Clause, created by Fossa, Inc., is anaddendum to anopen-source software license 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 Labs shifted someRedis Modules from theGNU Affero General Public License[5][6] to a combination of theApache License 2.0 and the Commons Clause.[7][8]
In September 2018,Matthew Garrett criticized Commons Clause calling it an "older way of doing things" and said it "doesn't help thecommons".[9]
Business Source License has been introduced byMariaDB Corporation in 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 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 License orMIT License.[13]
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 core company.
In 2016, Mega Ltd. released thesource code of theirMega clients 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 before former directorKim Dotcom stated that he would "create a Mega competitor that is completely open source and non-profit" following his departure from Mega Ltd.[18][19]
Microsoft'sShared Source Initiative, launched in May 2001, comprises 5 licenses, 2 of which areopen-source and 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]
Prior to version 5,Scilab described 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-compatibleCeCILL license.
TheServer Side Public License is a modification of theGNU Affero General Public License created by theMongoDB project. 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,Debian andRed Hat, as it contains conditions that are unduly discriminatory towards commercial use of the software.[26][27]
In 2007Michael Tiemann, president of OSI, had criticized[28] companies such asSugarCRM for 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 GPL version 3 in 2010.[31]
The TrueCrypt License was used by theTrueCryptdisk encryptionutility.[32] When TrueCrypt was discontinued, theVeraCryptfork switched to theApache License, but retained the TrueCrypt License for code inherited from TrueCrypt.[33]
TheOpen Source Initiative rejects the TrueCrypt License, as "it has elements incompatible with theOSD."[34] TheFree Software Foundation criticizes the license for restricting who can execute the program, and for enforcing a trademark condition.[35]
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]
"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.
| General | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Software packages | |||
| Community | |||
| Organisations | |||
| Licenses |
| ||
| Challenges | |||
| Related topics | |||
