You are about the open source part: http://opensource.org/osd. The 'Naming' section of your link references the osd.

Calling it just one or the other is enough though. Being "under a Free Software license" by definition means "the code is open (i.e. you can study it), so no need to say "and Open Source".

I do however prefer calling it free software over open source as I find the free software definition simpler and than the osd. And also because the term open source seems to place importance on the code being 'open' instead of 'libre', which you'll here rms talking about everytime someone says open source.

"Free software" has issues as well as a term, since free can obviously mean two things, gratis or libre. However, once the reader/listener has understood the difference between free of charge software and software that preserves your freedom to study, modify and redistribute it, I think open source is the more problematic term as it can more easily cause confusion as demonstrated by your comment (where you think open source means that the code just has to be 'open').

Almost nobody would call merely viewable source "open source". Certainly not the OSI.

I see. I call that free software, because "having access to the source code" is part of free software licenses.

The kind of "open source" I was talking about is source code that is released under a non-free software license. What do we call that?

---

@alexvoda "it's not really open source" is the part I tried to contradict. I may have been wrong though.

> The kind of "open source" I was talking about is source code that is released under a non-free software license. What do we call that?

"obnoxious".

More seriously, typically something like "look but don't touch", or "proprietary with source available", or "source available under a restrictive license". Microsoft used to call it "shared source", and that term still has those connotations too.

Definitely not "open source", though; that means more than just "has source available".

It's common practice in the game industry to license/pay for access to the source code. Whether you end up changing it or not is up to you, but at least you have a choice. This might not be true for Microsoft's "public" source code. I don't know. It looks like we're talking about two very different domains.

The Unreal Engine is an example for this kind of business model on a large scale. KoboldTouch (used to be?) an example for the same on a very, very small scale (less than 5 people). I really don't see anything "obnoxious" about it.

> It's common practice in the game industry to license/pay for access to the source code. Whether you end up changing it or not is up to you, but at least you have a choice. This might not be true for Microsoft's "public" source code. I don't know. It looks like we're talking about two very different domains.

Yeah, that's a very different case. It's indeed moderately common for proprietary software frameworks/engines to include source, so that their paying customers can modify and redistribute, but cannot redistribute in source form (modified or otherwise). That's not any more obnoxious than any other kind of proprietary software distribution, and I wouldn't call it "look but don't touch", though it certainly isn't open source or free software.

The case I'm talking about is software with publically available source, but under a restrictive license that doesn't satisfy the OSI or FSF or DFSG definitions. For instance, many random projects on github that don't bother applying a license, or rar (the archive format implementation), or tarsnap, or the extremely obnoxious JSON license.

There's nothing wrong with doing that. Feel free to do whatever you want. But what you are talking about is not "Open Source". That term has a (different) meaning. If use "open source" for that, you will confused and trick people.

"open source" has been in use as a term in tech for a long time. It means (essentially) the same thing as "free software". Licences that disallow derivations (or commerical derivations) would not fall under the defintion of "open source" that nearly everyone uses.

You are free to come up with your own defintion of popular, agreed up terms. But this will lead to problems when you're using a different definition from everyone else.

For practical purposes, free and open source software are the same things with the same licenses. They're just different philosophies and goals.

Does Open Source guarantee the right to publish derivative source?

Yes, look up the definition:

http://opensource.org/osd-annotated

Nope what? You didn't actually contradict anything he said.